Nude Modeling (yes, again)

[on_the_hill]

So I guess when your daughter one day strips down naked on a public beach and you say “you’ve gone too far” she can always say "mum, what’s the big deal?

If she called me ‘mum’ I’d be shocked, indeed. I’m dad. But aside from that, we don’t have nude beaches here.

What about in a locker room? People are naked in gym locker rooms, and that’s no big deal. In fact, I’d say it’s a good thing.

 

[josh987654321]

If she called me ‘mum’ I’d be shocked, indeed. I’m dad. But aside from that, we don’t have nude beaches here.

Ahh, my apologies. I took a guess 50/50 chance.

I will adjust my analogies accordingly in the future

What about in a locker room? People are naked in gym locker rooms, and that’s no big deal. In fact, I’d say it’s a good thing.

Unisex locker rooms?

Also I wouldn’t call it ‘a good thing.’ I don’t think you’d get a very good response if you said “Hey guys, isn’t it good that were all naked in here together.” lol Id say in that situation it’s mostly done out of necessity and not desire.

Besides, I believe you are trying to introduce the gray into the argument with this, I believe nude modeling is quite different to that kind of situation, same with the other things people have brought up, because I am talking about a woman wanting to or getting paid, to stand naked before a group of strangers while they draw him/her. It’s not right.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[on_the_hill]

Unisex locker rooms?

Also I wouldn’t call it ‘a good thing.’ I don’t think you’d get a very good response if you said “Hey guys, isn’t it good that were all naked in here together.”

Oh, but now I’m tempted… That would be hilarious. Until I got punched in the mouth.

I was responding to your point that people ought not be naked in front of strangers, which is how the locker room came into it. Indeed, that’s probably the only situation where it normally occurs, though.

As for my calling it a good thing, I was headed in the direction of saying that people can get too caught up in the fear/phobia of nakedness. The younger guys in the locker room (in their 20s) always cover up to the point that they wear their clothes into the shower stalls to get undressed. The old men (70s+) have no qualms about walking around and talking to each other with nothing on but what the Good Lord gave ‘em. There’s an air of homophobia about the younger guys’ sense of nakedness. That is to say, ‘if you’re not covering up, you must be gay, dude.’

To some extent, it seems to me that we can turn something that’s not necessarily bad into something that’s taboo when we forbid it too stridently.

 

[marymary1975]

I was an art major and I took nude drawing classes in a Catholic university. There was nothing sexual about it. In fact most of the time we were more focused on getting the proportions or the muscles right so the professor wouldn’t come over to our easel and literally slash his charcoal across our rendition. Our models were not erotic in any sense. In fact most of them were no where near even what magazine models look like. We also used an anatomy book, used in medical schools, to assist us in our drawing. Although I don’t paint nudes, it did give me a basis for painting people with clothes on.

Did we feel we were exploiting these models? No, not really. Most of them were students from neighboring art schools who were trying to meet their bills or buy art supplies. Others were professional artistic models who only did classroom modeling. I would say most were serious about art and sometimes during breaks they would robe and walk around and comment on our renderings from an artistic point of view.

Yes, there might be a fine line between authentic artistic nudes and pornographic nude modeling, but it is up to the artist or the class professor to maintain the dignity of the model and respect for the art.

BTW, I always like to make the point that Michelangelo probably never used female models for his work. If he did then his female nudes wouldn’t look like construction workers with coconuts for breasts.

I like this answer. There is a fine line and a lot comes down to intent and it is up to the class and professor to maintain the respect and dignity. Also I agree with your last paragraph I have read in many places thatMichael Angelo never used female nudes instead he used black slaves models and that is why if you notice at the bodies of his paintings sculptures, they are so muscular and are not proportional to a female body. (And that is why as you said they look like construction workers with breasts)

 

[Boy_Wonder]

These are all very well said opinions, so thank you all. But few of them are what I was looking for. What I was asking was if nude modeling for an artist is alright in people’s opinions, particularly people who have done some modeling, nude modeling preferably, as they would have experience with what I am wondering about.
Evidently I expressed that poorly in my opening, I shall perhaps edit it to something more direct.
PS Well now, that’s peculiar. I don’t see any way to edit the post I used to start the conversation, either on the post itself or under “tools.”

I did it in college (34+ years ago) but am not sure I would do it again if I could go back in time.

It depends on the model’s motives. If it’s done for the sake of art and/or to earn extra money AND the subject of the art produced is not degrading or pornographic then it’s probably OK.

Do an honest assessment of your own goals and motives.

• If you want to be a nude model because you derive some arousing thrill out of being naked in front of others, then it’s wrong to do it.
• If you want to be a model out of vanity because you’re proud of your appearance, then it’s also wrong.

 

[Marm]

After just the first page of replies, I’m replying anyway. I’m a nude model. I understood the question perfectly, and the answer is, quite simply, “No, there is nothing wrong with wanting to do it, or doing it, or with anyone who does it.”

Remember that God made us naked - we only got shame after we got sin. I model in front of at least two professors from a Catholic college, with a monastery and a convent attached. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. There may be something wrong with the people casting stones here, though.

If you wanted to pose in outrageous sexy poses, then yes, that might be something to wrestle with in a confessional. But that kind of pose isn’t wanted. “Modest nudes” are more useful, and yes, there is such a thing.

Why posing is still useful: I have met artists ias an editor, needing art; as a member of a group that published an art book; as a fan of online blogs, websites, etc.; in art classes; and now as a model. You can tell who hasn’t worked from life. There are even some art schools who have agreements with medical departments so their students can draw from the cadavers.

There is no sexiness involved. You’re straining to hold a pose without letting the effort show, desperately trying to think of what your next pose will be, and if you’ll be able to hold that one. The artists are trying to get it down before you switch poses. Somebody’s trying to keep track of the time. People will ask before they touch you, and the only reason they touch you is to mark a pose, or help you get back into a pose, or to rearrange the pose, and even then it’s really rare. No one is sitting and judging the sexiness of your breasts, or your thigh gap. You’re there like a bowl of fruit for a still life.

Working from life is a specific skill. Translating something from 3-D to 2-D is quite different from copying from a picture or drawing. When you have a picture, you see absolutely where the shadows and edges are, and half the work is already done, flattening the image for paper. When you’re drawing from life, you’ll get more expression, and it will be harder to focus on what you’re actually seeing as opposed to what you expect to be seeing.

If you’re still interested, talk to some artists. There is nothing arousing, immodest, or morally wrong with life modeling. If someone is looking at a life model with impure thoughts, the fault is with the person having the thoughts. It’s like blaming a woman in a short skirt for being raped. The fault isn’t in the victim; it’s in the perpetrator. If nude modeling makes someone uncomfortable and they can’t handle it, then the solution is for them to not go to a nude model’s session. But if we stop using models, then whole generations of artists will miss out on essential skills due to the fears of the ignorant. I don’t see the benefit there. If we tried to remove everything in life that anyone might find tempting, we’d have to blow up the planet.

No one who’s drawn me has been under the age of 50. There are a whole bunch of local colleges, but somehow none of the art students show up for the nude sessions. After asking around, the conclusion is: 1) They’re not interested; 2) the professors who draw me and who have art degrees find this appalling laziness; 3) the profs bemoan the fact that the local colleges have had to get rid of their own on-campus nude sessions because some alarmists worried that it might be taken the wrong way. If there were something sexually thrilling to be derived from the nudity, wouldn’t there be a ton of college kids packing the place, hormones aglow? Instead, it’s a room full of ex-housewives, some professors nearing retirement, and lifelong artists interested in keeping their skills up.

Artists don’t care what shape you are. They want different ages and genders and shapes, because otherwise they won’t learn what the differences are and how to draw them (hips, knees, center of balance, shoulders, etc.). I have been told repeatedly that I’m a favorite model, and the reasons have nothing to do with looks. They like that I am relaxed and natural and not stiff, fake, and posed-looking, that I hold still like a rock, that I do research to figure out interesting poses and don’t repeat the same ones. They like that I’m intelligent and have a sense of humor, and can have a conversation with most of them on a wide range of topics, and have a passing acquaintance with art.

I’m starting to get clothed modeling sessions, and to be honest, those are a lot more difficult. What do you wear? Should you worry about which clothes look good on you, or just find things that would be more fun to draw/paint? Will people be more likely to buy a painting if you’re wearing their favorite color, or if you’re wearing what looks good on you? How do you make sure that you get the folds of the clothing arranged the same way after a break? What color should the props and backdrop be? Where can you find new places to pose? So many more variables!

Posing nude is perfectly moral. Go back through art history and the great masters of religious art and find someone who didn’t do something involving nudity. Michelangelo had never seen a naked woman, and it absolutely shows. (Feel free to Google it, because it’s hysterical.) Don’t worry about the people who think it’s Naughty. People aren’t supposed to be judging you, anyway. That’s God’s job, and he knows what’s in your heart, and the hearts of the artists drawing you.

 

[edwest2]

It’s nor perfectly moral. It compromises the dignity of the person, male or female. As someone with artistic training, including advanced painting, the figure drawing class was a waste of time. Non-photographic anatomy books are far simpler and a lot more useful. I work with many artists and as an assistant art director, I have to explain, out of four pencil roughs for a cover, why I’ve chosen one of the four. I have less than five minutes to make my case. The pose, mood, lighting, background and overall composition must be understood on their most fundamental level and then I need to explain how it works in this particular case. I usually get no reply, aside from a “thank you” from the head art director, who makes the final choice.

Having taken hundreds of photographs myself, I can assure anyone reading this that there is a goal. In the case of packaged objects, one has the ultimate goal of making that package look appealing without having to add any effects to it. I have to know which background is most suitable to show the item in its best light, along with understanding how to deal with unwanted reflections.

So, what is the goal of nude modeling? There is no legitimate outlet for it in the real world with the exception of sacred art, and even then, the purpose of the nude must be apparent to the average viewer. A lot happens under the skin that unless someone knows how muscle and bone work together, they won’t know why certain muscles appear, and others remain hidden, until an arm, for example, is moved upward from the side.

And clothing? It takes a while to understand how to draw realistic folds and fabric textures, from shiny to soft. I think bikini ads with live models should be banned. Why? Young women have been brainwashed by a deformed media culture that presents other young women exposing 90+% of their skin. This is plainly shameful and wrong. And as time passes, I see adds for bikinis with a few more centimeters shaved off. The goal is obvious, and wrong.

Even bra and pantie ads, along with ridiculous “thong” underwear for men, should be banned. Use a mannequin wearing functional underwear as opposed to some of the perverse types out there.

An appropriate sense of shame and guilt is needed by all (and I refer to myself also). In the vast majority of cases, once the nude human body is classified as OK in one or two cases, then more is asked. A line is crossed. Time to put a stop to that.

There is nothing wrong with the nude human body per se. After gym class, all us guys showered together in Catholic school. Nothing strange there. I worked in a hospital and under clearly defined circumstances, there was some nudity, but there was also a line. For treatment purposes only.

The average artist will never need a nude. Perhaps a photo of a model at any age with any body type, and then it’s the face and neck, arms and legs, and perhaps the feet.

In the 1950s, various publications “for artists” that showed photos of nudes are now selling with the rest of the porn at used bookstores.

Peace,
Ed

 

[gigi4747]

This thread is a bit old now, but I wanted to post a thank you to Josh and robwar and all who tried to discourage the teenage girl Pound Coolish from nude modeling. Whether or not there is a defined Church teaching on this, I think about how heartsick I believe most dads would be to think about their young daughter doing nude modeling. And if our human father would be unhappy/uncomfortable with the idea, I just can’t imagine our Heavenly Father actually calling any young woman to do it. So, again, thank you. I really needed to see this thread - I’m grateful to know there are men like you in the world and in the Church.

 

[filiusdextris]

Another perspective on nude art modeling

I have been a figure model for three years (both community groups and at universities), and I thought another perspective might be helpful to the original poster and anyone else who might be reading. First I’ll give my perspective on modeling, and then I’ll address some of the issues that have been raised:

PART I

First of all, I believe the human body is good and wholesome. We are made in the image of God, and every human being has dignity and worth. Our culture and media give so many negative messages about the body, and it’s really sad the amount of destruction that has been done to people’s self-worth and their attitude toward others. We need good art to counter this message and portray the dignity of the human body. When a model stands nude in front of a group of artists, he/she is saying, “This is good. This is natural. This is real. This is worth capturing in art.” Artists draw the human form for a number of reasons, but when they are doing so, the model is representing all of humanity at that moment. It doesn’t matter if the person is male, female, young, old, tall, short, fat, thin, etc. It doesn’t matter if the model has cellulite, stretch marks, scars, etc. All of these things are real, and people need to see reality. Because true beauty is rooted in reality. The fantasy of “ideal beauty” portrayed in our media is shallow, and it causes a great deal of damage. The reason I model is to help people see reality and to appreciate humanity in general.

During longer poses in every drawing session, I pray for each person in the room, asking that God will capture them unto Christ and bring them to full maturity in Christ. I also pray that God would use the opportunity to see another human being in a completely natural state, which is created in the image of God, in such a way that it would draw them to their Creator, increase purity of heart, and counter the numerous negative messages from culture and media.

I suspect that these prayers have positively influenced the sessions more than once. I honestly cannot relate to many of the problems that have been raised. To the original poster, it sounds like you were working in a very unprofessional environment. If I was constantly getting hit on by students (which I never have been) and the instructor didn’t want to hear about it, I would probably quit working there too. Or if it became a regular problem, I would at least print up a small pamphlet and hand it out to the students before class explaining proper etiquette and why I model from a Christian perspective.

Now, to address a few of the issues raised:

Is drawing nudes completely asexual? Having done a fair amount of figure drawing myself, I can state that it generally is. After hours and hours of drawing, the artist is usually worn out. By the end of a semester, students frequently skip figure drawing class, and on breaks they talk about how much they are tired of drawing people. However, human beings are sexual beings, and you cannot divorce sexuality from our humanity. God made us with our sexuality intertwined with our being, and we need to learn how to glorify Him with it. If you rarely saw a human body growing up, then the first time you do, it will bring out all sorts of emotions and curiosities–perfectly normal things, but so far there has been no suitable avenue to learn about God’s creation of the human body. In a much worse scenario, if you have only learned about the human body through pornography and promiscuous activities, then your view will be completely warped, and it will take some strong doses of “good nudity” to transform your thought process. For people in either situation, they have either an incomplete or a warped view of the human body, and they both need to see what the human body really looks like in order to appreciate it in a pure, God-honoring way.

The problem is a fundamental attitude toward the human body. The pornography industry says, “The human body is an object that will entice sexual lust–indulge!” Unfortunately, the mainstream church in America echoes this message, saying, “The human body is an object that will entice sexual lust–suppress!” Neither attitude is Biblical. The Biblical view is that man and woman are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; 5:1), fearfully and wonderfully made (Psa. 139:14), and the human body is very good in God’s eyes (Gen. 1:31). Furthermore, it is a living picture of the church as the Body of Christ (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12ff.; Eph. 1:22-23).

The original post mentioned a figure drawing teacher who said, “You can never get away from the lustful side. It’s always there, ready to surface.” That’s absolutely true. But it’s not only true in a figure drawing class. It’s also true about the girl or guy you see walking down the street, your next door neighbor, or the person in the aisle in front of you in church. Satan will use every opportunity to tempt you. Nudity isn’t the issue, because the nude human body is a good, wholesome thing created by God. The problem is the heart, which is fallen and sinful. We can be tempted to lust just as easily at a clothed or unclothed person. (Although after having been around the human body more over the past few years, I find I am tempted by a clothed body much more than a body in its natural state.) The solution to this problem is to take hold of Christ as our righteousness, sanctification, redemption, and our all (1 Cor. 1:30). We need our mind transformed from worldly views (“indulge”) and religious views (“suppress”), both of which treat the body as something less than good. We need the mind of Christ who sees all people in purity the way the human body was intended to be seen by its Creator.*

 

[filiusdextris]

[cont. 2 of 4]
Sheltering ourselves from the human body (which, again, is created in the image of God) will not do anything to eradicate lust. Only Christ through the Holy Spirit can purify us and keep us from temptation.

Is nudity immodest? The original post says that nude modeling is a very immodest act. I strongly disagree. The modern definition of the word modesty is a perversion of what the Bible teaches. The only Biblical passage that says to dress modestly is found in 1 Timothy 2:9-10–“in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.” Paul’s definition of modesty is that of not adorning oneself with costly, showy clothing. However, in the first century, men and women often bathed in the rivers and worked nude (Peter was fishing nude in John 21; the Lord Jesus was mistaken for a gardener in John 20, presumably because He was nude). Paul’s admonition to dress modestly is more about not trying to be “in fashion,” not trying to flaunt wealth, and not trying to be seductive with clothing. In fact, the most desirable clothing for a godly person is “good works.” In and of itself, the human body in its natural God-created state is not immodest. It is proper, good, and pure. Certainly people can do unwholesome things with their bodies, but the body in and of itself is completely modest.

I’ve done a bit of research on how the common views of the body have changed throughout history. When Constantine declared Christianity the state religion, a lot of Greek philosophy was brought into the church. One view was that the body is evil, but the spirit is good. Gradually, this view was accepted, and the church (and society in general) has never quite recovered. We need to reclaim the Biblical position that God created us as body, soul, and spirit. All three aspects are good, and only when we understand these three aspects can we truly understand what it means to be made in the image of God.

Is nudity necessary to learn how to draw the human body? The original post mentions that proportion can generally be learned if the model wears a swimsuit. While this is true, I find that it degrades the model. It is essentially saying, “You have certain parts that are indecent and will incite lust or disgust in others. We don’t want to see all of you, just enough of you to learn proportion.” I’ve talked with other models who have posed in figure drawing sessions where they were asked to wear a swimsuit, and they have commented that they felt more shame and immodesty in a swimsuit that when they were nude. I’ve also been in this situation, and I feel less pure modeling in a swimsuit than with nothing. If you want to draw a person, learn to draw a whole person. If you cover up certain parts, you are essentially labeling them as “dirty bits.” I’ve heard Christians say, “No one wants to see your _______” (fill in the offending body part). This attitude does not honor God’s creation, and it does not honor your fellow human beings.

Having said that, every art instructor I’ve spoken with on the topic has said that they provide alternatives for students who have moral or religious objections to drawing nude figures. (Usually, they draw a skeleton over and over again, or they copy photographs.) I’ve never known of anyone who was forced to draw nudes. And if they were, they are certainly free to select another major or go to another school that uses models in bathing suits.

 

[filiusdextris]

[cont. 3 of 4]

PART II

The example of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve covered themselves after sinning. What was God’s reaction? Did He say, “It was wrong that you sinned, but good job on covering up?” No, He said, “Who told you that you were naked?” (Gen. 3:11, implying that this thought did not originate from themselves, but from Satan). Even after they were covered Adam said, “I was afraid because I am naked” (Gen. 3:10). Why did Adam say he was naked since he had already covered himself? It’s because he realized that “there is no creature that is not manifest before [God], but all things are naked and laid bare to the eyes of Him to whom we are to give our account” (Heb. 4:13). It’s true that God gave Adam and Eve clothing, but this was after He had cursed the ground to grow thorns and thistles, sentencing the man and his wife to a lifetime of difficult labor. The clothing was for protection, not modesty. They were husband and wife! Why would God want them not to see each other? If one insists that the clothing God gave Adam and Eve was for modesty, then a consistent interpretation would indicate that husbands and wives should not see each other naked. However, this is clearly refuted in other passages. God’s giving of clothing did not in any way condemn simple nudity, but it was a sign of His loving provision in a fallen world.

There are actually two different Hebrew words for “naked” in Genesis. In Genesis 2:25 when it says, “the man and his wife were both naked and not ashamed,” the word for “naked” is ayrome. This word simply means “existing in one’s natural state without anything added.” Nowhere in the Bible is ayrome condemned. Job used this word when he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return.” Ecclesiastes 5:15 gives a similar phrase. There are several times when this word is used to speak of people in a deprived condition–that is, those who need clothing for protection, but do not have it–but it is never spoken of as sinful. There are also times when this condition is forced upon people, such as the captives in Isaiah 20, and it is certainly a shame to be forcibly stripped of everything one has. But the body itself is not shameful; the act of being stripped by your captors is the shameful thing. (Incidentally, God tells Isaiah to go naked and barefoot for three years in this chapter–hardly a condemnation of nudity in and of itself!)

As far as the second word for “naked”… After eating from the tree of knowledge, it says that Adam and Eve realized that they were naked. The word for "naked’ here is awram. This word means “exposed, vulnerable,” and it is always associated with sin. Once again, after Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves, Adam told God that he was naked. Adam still felt naked even after being covered! This indicates that clothing does not prevent us from being awram. All who have sinned are exposed before God and deserve His judgment, and clothes do not change that fact. When we are spiritually clothed with Christ, we are no longer awram, regardless of our physical covering. And regardless of our physical covering we are still awram if we have not been spiritually covered with Christ.

 

[filiusdextris]

[cont. 4 of 4]
Conclusion

I apologize for the lengthiness of the post, but the topic raises some fundamental issues that go far beyond figure drawing. It touches on our attitude toward the human body, humanity in general, and God’s creation. The more I research various culture’s attitudes toward the human body and the more I realize what a horrible pornography epidemic we have today–especially in the United States, including the church–the more I am convinced that Christian men and women would benefit greatly from taking a weekly figure drawing class. We need to look upon the human body as God views it. David said, “I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, and my soul knows it well” (Psa. 139:14). The problem is that, for most of us, our soul does not know it well. We do not truly believe that God’s works are wonderful. We believe that some of them are dirty and lust magnets. How we need to be delivered from this worldly attitude! Figure drawing is an excellent way to see the human body in purity. And Christians can set a good example and provide an excellent witness for those in figure drawing classes who may not share the same view.

To the original poster: I’m sorry that you have experienced the negative attitudes and actions toward you. In three years of modeling at universities and community art classes, I have never experienced these things. I would encourage you with Romans 12:21–“Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil with good.” Even if there are people who have impure motives and enroll in figure drawing classes for the wrong reasons, don’t let evil get the upper hand. You are in a wonderful position to reach out to these people and witness to them. Because of the artist-model relationship, you are in a position to reach them in a way that few others can. Of course, if you sense that the Lord is calling you away from modeling, then by all means follow Him. But don’t give up on modeling because of sinful people who have poor attitudes. We would have to withdraw from all occupations if that were the case.

To those who are interested in modeling, I would say this: Check your motives. Are you modeling for the reasons mentioned above? Are you modeling to glorify God with your body? Are you modeling in order to express His image? Are you modeling so that others will see the beauty of God’s creation and be drawn to the Creator? Are you modeling so that others will have a greater appreciation for humanity and hopefully respond with greater respect toward their fellow man? If so, then model as much as you can and be bold in the fact that you are proclaiming a message (“the body is good”) that is counter-cultural to both the secular and the religious world! The art world needs godly models, and the world needs godly art. Figure modeling is a noble profession for those who are willing to confront the secular and religious culture with God’s truth.

A few tips: When I model, I always introduce myself at the beginning of class to emphasize that I am a person, not merely an object to draw. I also pray for each individual artist/student during the session. Whenever anyone asks me why I model, I use it as an opportunity to proclaim God’s truth about the human body. Over the course of time, I have met some of the neatest people, drawn others to Christ, and have met some wonderful Christians who have encouraged me in my walk with the Lord. The artists may think that they are hiring you to help them learn about drawing, but God’s purpose is greater than that–He is bringing you to these men and women so that they can receive prayer and so that you can minister to them as the opportunity presents itself. Finally, take the job seriously, show up on time, and create good-quality (i.e. interesting) poses. If you are recognized as a good model, you will be invited back, which will give you more opportunities to minister to others, and it will also lend more credence to everything you say. Enjoy modeling, and may God be with you!

 

[QuasiCatholic]

If you REALLY want to shamelessly model, remember if your intentional actions cause just one person to fall into sin, it’s your fault.

It’s at best a venial sin unless her intention is to cause sin, though. Don’t be so dramatic.

 

[edwest2]

Generalizations are not helpful here. Artists, get a well-drawn anatomy book that covers bone and muscle as well as exterior features. A professional I spoke with had a few others also listening to his tips about how to draw. When he was told his hands were amazing, he asked the person to make a fist and hold it at eye level. “That,” he said, “is how I draw hands.”

I know commercial artists. I was there in a “prestigious” commercial art studio examining the work in the various artists’ cubicles after hours. I was amazed at how mediocre a lot of it was. Only two people impressed me: the guy who did airbrush highlighting, folds and contrasting for automobile interiors and another guy who was very good, but soon left to do what I call “deformed art.” Compared to the 1940s and 1950s, the demand for illustrative work is either feast or famine. Of the professionals we know, the market for their work is limited and they either specialize in one category or go where the money is. The current trend is dark - dark, menacing people, regardless of category. That is the prevailing mood for illustrators who produce commercial work.

In the end, you have to plan, you have to look around, you have to select the right outlets for your artwork because it will be your legacy. It will affect people. I know this because of the comments we’ve received about the artists and artwork we publish, which our head art director insists must be “family friendly.”

Be that person who uses his gifts wisely.

Peace,
Ed

 

[gigi4747]

Hi, filiusdextris: Thank you for posting this. I’m editing my post because initially I thought you believed flam and pound Coolish to be the same person. Now I realize that you posted this because they asked the same question.

At any rate, I have prayed about this issue and I just can’t really believe God is calling Flam or Pound Coolish or whomever to do nude modeling. So again I thank all who tried to discourage her. I’m a nurse and I see people in various states of undress every time I work. I know that “the body is beautiful, it’s God’s creation, etc” but it would take a lot more than that to convince me that bringing people to God, creating something of beauty, etc, would ever involve disrobing in front of strangers for no truly compelling reason. Also, while Flam states many truths, I don’t agree some of her conclusions, or with what seems to be her contention that God gave us clothes simply for protection, not modesty. (I realize I could be reading that wrong, but that does seem to be what she’s saying.) I wonder too if her dad knows she does nude modeling and how he feels about it. I guess we can only speak from our own experiences and observations, but I can’t imagine that making any father feel truly joyful.

Anyways, thank you again.

 

[filiusdextris]

I’m not sure you’re appreciating the strength of her argument. Your lens is focused on “why?” Hers is focused on “why not?”

What does she have going for her? It is not an intrinsically evil act to disrobe in front of strangers. The problem is that 1) it is either often intended to incite lust; or 2) it is for fallen man (especially males) a near occasion of sin of lust or perhaps worse.

With respect for #1, that poster would most certainly agree with every other concerned person here. That intention, if held, would make the act immoral.

Regarding #2, the near occasion of sin, well, every action could be subjectively interpreted as a near occasion for someone. We have to use prudence in order to evaluate whether we should continue that action - do the likely potential benefits outweigh the likely potential harms? For example, I can preach about God, but doing so might lead some with a hard heart to completely turn away from God. While context manners, prudence tells me that should normally not cause me to stop preaching about God.

The danger of nude modeling is in causing others to sin by lust. The causation element is sorely deficient here (though not nonexistent). To the extent that the viewers are pure, there is no causation of lust. Similarly, to the extent the viewers are already hard-bitten sinners in this area, there is no causation - they already have that predisposition. To the extent that viewers would lust with whatever you deem to be an appropriate amount of clothing (it happens all the time), there is no causation by the model. A big one is that to the extent in this secular society of ours if the Christian nude model was not available based on your concerns, whether there would be another nude model hired instead who did not share the Christian model’s concerns. Obviously, in your analysis, if you make the Christian nude model unavailable, the potential for sin by the viewer is not lessened.

Finally, and perhaps the biggest reason, and now moving on to reasons for, is that nude modeling in a Christian mindset as described above has a great chance to exercise some good. There are a huge number of people who have suffered from sexual sin, but who are looking for redemption. They need an integrated vision of the unitotality of the person, and either cannot appreciate or need supplementation to their understanding from lectures of the theology of the body. Without nude modeling, they may lack an outlet to really assimilate that understanding. Without having experienced this myself, I suspect a lot of Catholics could gain a lot of appreciation, not only for God’s beauty in creation which is not to be underestimated (or overestimated, admittedly), but for their proper orientation of their sexual gift.

If we still lived in Christendom, where we could hide our heads from sexual sin more effectively, the analysis would likely differ. But in this secular society, we have to be more open-minded that there could be a role for Christian nude modeling.

 

[gigi4747]

Hi, filiusdextris: Thanks for your response. Lol well I guess you’re correct that I’m not seeing the strength of her argument. As I said, I’m a nurse. I’ve never once felt the need to write 15 long paragraphs explaining or justifying my decision to work as a nurse. Why do you think flam felt the need to exert so much energy defending nude modeling? And I do think that if we are possibly sinning ourselves or leading others to do so, we had better have a good reason as to “why” for our behavior. (Like most people, I’m sure, I have at times lacked a good answer to the why question and I regret that now.) So you’re right also about the orientation of my question, which I don’t believe to be a weakness in my perspective on this. As to helping sinners find healing, hm, that’s a bit of a tough sell, too. Wouldn’t you agree that there are countless ways one can do that without taking one’s clothes off? And is viewing nude art a potential therapy for sexual sin?? I’ve never heard that theory and honestly I guess I’m doubtful. I intend to continue to pray for guidance on this issue.

Again, for myself anyways, with potentially sensitive issues or behaviors like this, it helps to personalize it. ie, would I want my own sister, daughter, niece, friend doing this? Can you honestly say, even after putting forth why you believe nude modeling is a positive good for humanity, that you’d encourage a young woman you care about and desire to protect to do it? Or that you would be genuinely happy if, for example, your wife or college aged daughter decided to do nude modeling? I’m not saying you’d be angry that they were sinning; I think the point for me is that if you desire to protect someone, especially a young woman, you don’t encourage them to take off their clothes unless it’s really necessary.

 

[filiusdextris]

Hi, filiusdextris: Thanks for your response. Lol well I guess you’re correct that I’m not seeing the strength of her argument. As I said, I’m a nurse. I’ve never once felt the need to write 15 long paragraphs explaining or justifying my decision to work as a nurse. Why do you think flam felt the need to exert so much energy defending nude modeling?

Is your argument that her practice is immoral since she spent 15 long paragraphs defending the practice against attacks? By that logic, all of Christianity would be immoral since more has been written in its defense than any other topic. C’mon, lets reason honestly here.

As to helping sinners find healing, hm, that’s a bit of a tough sell, too. Wouldn’t you agree that there are countless ways one can do that without taking one’s clothes off? And is viewing nude art a potential therapy for sexual sin?? I’ve never heard that theory and honestly I guess I’m doubtful. I intend to continue to pray for guidance on this issue.

Well, at this point, if a putative Christian nude model can honestly so reason, he or she is no longer guilty of anything worse than a lack of prudence. The person who truly believes his or her modelling is moral has a duty to develop the virtue of prudence that may end up discouraging the practice, but his or her physical act is not sinful in intention. There are almost infinite ways to practice virtue in our lifetimes, but we can only practice a few of these at most. Some will feed the poor, some will educate the ignorant, some will entertain as a sports star. Who are you or I to say which non-intrinsically evil ways another is to practice? I am a pretty firm believer in the capacity of nude art to be a vehicle for healing sexual addiction. I keep an open mind that I am wrong, but if it helps you keep an open mind, please consider that I have a strong belief. I will not offer much extrinsic evidence other than to loosely consider the extensive writings of John Paul II on the subject validating the expression of nudity in art in general. This doesn’t directly tie into nude modeling, per se, as EdWest has pointed out, but I, for one, find it implicit enough.

Again, for myself anyways, with potentially sensitive issues or behaviors like this, it helps to personalize it. ie, would I want my own sister, daughter, niece, friend doing this?

While the question is technically irrelevant, I appreciate that it makes a good moral litmus test. I have definitely asked myself this same question before. Count the worth of the words of an anonymous forum poster however you want, but I honestly aver that I would have no problem with my wife doing nude modelling in the future, provided that her intentions were pure and those of the artists and any would-be producers so far as she could prudently discern. In many ways, I would be humbled, as I respect my wife’s amazing body so much.

Similarly, I would no longer have a problem (as I once would have) with my daughter going to an American beach in a bikini, or to a foreign beach with less, if that truly was included in the subjective definition of modesty for the culture at large (that’s very debatable, of course). If she were going in a group or alone with friends of the opposite sex, if asked, I would strongly discourage the practice, as it would seem to fail prudence tests. However, as an anonymous practice, I can give some cautious acceptance as I fail again to see causation if the putative would-be sinner would merely objectify someone else instead. Her own subjective reasons for wearing a bikini (or less) must be pure (comfort, prettiness that does not reach to vanity, etc.), but I leave that up to her. I would consider it a vanity of my own to react more emotionally to a sin of lust against my daughter than against any other sister in Christ, except insomuch as I may have a duty to warn my daughter. All are treasured equally in God’s eyes.

I hope these answer some of your concerns.

 

[gigi4747]

Hi, filiusdextris: Your point that the amount written about a topic isn’t necessarily correlated with its morality or lack thereof is a good one (and my intent was never to reason in a less than honest way). That said, though, I would expect countless volumes to be written on religions, political systems, or other fields of study and human endeavor. But comparing one job or behavior to another - that is where I find it telling that someone needs to write an essay justifying or defending their decisions, in comparison to most of us, who are never challenged on this score to begin with. You probably disagree with the previous sentence, but I think on this whole topic, we probably will have to agree to disagree. Whatever her sin here is or isn’t (my desire is not that anyone cast stones at her), I guess I doubt that she truly believes her decision to do nude modeling is a genuinely healthy or beneficial one. I believe you also, if you say so, that you’d be fine with your wife or daughter doing nude modeling, but I guess Josh’s and robwar’s reactions (as you can tell) really resonated with me due to my own sensibilities and again, were extremely encouraging to me. Anyways, thanks for your time.

 

[josh987654321]

This thread is a bit old now, but I wanted to post a thank you to Josh and robwar and all who tried to discourage the teenage girl Pound Coolish from nude modeling.

Thank you

Whether or not there is a defined Church teaching on this, I think about how heartsick I believe most dads would be to think about their young daughter doing nude modeling. And if our human father would be unhappy/uncomfortable with the idea, I just can’t imagine our Heavenly Father actually calling any young woman to do it.

Well said I believe

So, again, thank you. I really needed to see this thread - I’m grateful to know there are men like you in the world and in the Church.

Thank you

God Bless

Josh