Nude Modeling (yes, again)

[josh987654321]

.

Hey filiusdextris

I just want to start by letting you know that I’ve read all of your posts and want to thank you for taking the time to write them although I still agree wholeheartedly with my previous posts. I also want to say that, me replying individually to all of the points expressed there I believe will end up becoming too time consuming and counter productive (sending us around in circles), as I believe it’s slowly morphing into ‘nudity’ in art areas (which I believe is a grey area open to much manipulation) instead of someone doing ‘nude modelling’ (and by this I mean, a real life person, stripping down for the artist).

Now as for myself, I don’t know much about art at all, but I don’t believe I have to know much about art to know that paying someone, or simply getting someone, to strip down and stand naked in front of a group of strangers while they are drawn, or while pictures are taken, is wrong, not only do I believe it to be immoral, but wrong for many practical purposes too.

I think, maybe I will try a list of pros and cons, as it’s obvious where my position on ‘nude modelling’ is, so I’ll start with the cons

Cons

Desensitization

It gets them ‘comfortable’ with nudity in front of strangers, especially with opposite sex ones. I believe it can be a mild form of adultery, as a betrayal of marital intimacy for a partner to expose themselves intimately like that to others of the opposite sex (In the medical profession, opposite sex nurses are generally not used when there is nudity that needs to be involved for good reason I believe).

Desacralization

Due to the Desensitization of her naked self in front of others, it reduces the intimacy of it regarding their spouse or future spouse, (after all “it’s no big deal”) it also warps their minds into thinking that everyone sees their naked self in non lustful ways, such as art and thus they can easily have very poor standards when it comes to ‘immodest clothing’ (This is why I used the Miranda Kerr quote, as I believe she was slowly desensitized to something beforehand she clearly did not want to do).

Dignity and Respect for the human person

It reduces their dignity and respect, their self esteem and self worth, as it’s all about the body and not the person, it objectifies them, which can easily turn into vanity and depression. It also reduces the dignity and respect others have for them which also feeds into the lack of self worth for themselves.

**Uncontrollable **

When these images are drawn, or when these pictures are taken, people no longer have any control over where they go or who sees them or how the artist views them. (In our technological age, a picture can be snapped and plastered all over the internet easily).

Pros

**Art **

Which is hardly a pro for me, for art to be good it doesn’t need to contain nudity and much of it can be done without getting a real person to strip down naked in front of a group of strangers for money (it even sounds like a form of prostitution I believe).

I hope this has helped

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

Infact, I classify ‘nude modelling’ as a mild form of prostitution under the proviso of art.

 

[filiusdextris]

Your last three sentences are a puzzle to me. “Edenic vision”? “pure vision in art”? “must be a church of the yes”? At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all, I am a professional editor and understand word and phrase choices when conveying certain things. The words I quoted don’t tell me anything I can decipher.

Ed

I have worked as a professional editor as well. I’ll try to make it simpler for you so you can understand.

An Edenic vision is viewing Original Man and aspiring to that noble situation where one has an authentic vision of God’s beauty, unspoilt by concupiscence. It aspires to Original Innocence in thought, word, and deed. Purity.

A pure vision in art (or “using the medium of art”) is using art to achieve this Edenic vision.

Although I cannot name one off-hand, I’ve read several authors who have talked about the Catholic Church being a church of the “yes,” instead of a church of the Thou-Shalt-Nots. It’s certainly not my phraseology. Many non-theists see the Church or God as a bunch of old out-of-touch fuddy duddies saying what you can’t do. The perception of negativity does not inspire souls. Yes, some people need such a list, but more often than not people are inspired more by love. We exalt Mary’s “yes”, precisely for these reasons, asking God’s will be done. You can say “no pornography” while I can say “love authentically.” Both can result in the same action: purity of heart. Yours may be clearer, but far less people will relate to it. But if our mindset is only of things we cannot do, we will content ourselves in non-transgression (and often fail) instead of aspiring to heavenly things. Be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. That’s a better perspective than “do not do A,B,C,X,Y,Z.”

 

[filiusdextris]

I don’t believe I have to know much about art to know that paying someone, or simply getting someone, to strip down and stand naked in front of a group of strangers while they are drawn, or while pictures are taken, is wrong…

I agree with this, but I reject your reductionism. If you get someone to “simply” strip down for art’s sake, you’ve totally taken out the entire gift dimension without which you might as well be in some form of prostitution. In fact, reading back, I see that’s your term - a very apt comparison.

But that’s NOT what I’m talking about. The Christian nude model has to realize what he or she is getting into (i.e., original shame), the potential for good and evil that exists, and even so, make a gift of self for the sake of ennobling beauty and the full dimensions of the truth of the goodness of the body as subject-object in the eyes of the Father Creator. Ultimately, the model puts himself or herself at the service of the gospel. If you fail to see, or reject, this donative (gift) aspect, I agree that we have nothing more really to discuss at present on this topic.

 

[gigi4747]

Well, I guess it was only a matter of time before someone raised the specters of “Puritanism” (or the other usual go-to when one is defending nudity, “prudishness”) in this conversation. I disagree that either is in play in my sensibilities on this (although I also wouldn’t be particularly bothered if they were - in the spectrum of personal defects, these are pretty benign and I think people who have these traits are likely to err on the side of caution and not violate other people’s bodies or sensibilities). Also, the idea that our culture has ever been in the “iron grip” of repressiveness is to some greater or lesser degree, but without question, an overstatement, imo.

 

[filiusdextris]

Well, I guess it was only a matter of time before someone raised the specters of “Puritanism” (or the other usual go-to when one is defending nudity, “prudishness”) in this conversation. I disagree that either is in play in my sensibilities on this (although I also wouldn’t be particularly bothered if they were - in the spectrum of personal defects, these are pretty benign and I think people who have these traits are likely to err on the side of caution and not violate other people’s bodies or sensibilities). Also, the idea that our culture has ever been in the “iron grip” of repressiveness is to some greater or lesser degree, but without question, an overstatement, imo.

Specter? Why do you suppose our culture swung so far into licentiousness? Quite probably because it was steeped in sexual repression and broke out of its chains. From what I understand historically, not once but twice, as around the 1850s and there were huge free sex movements going around.

Anyways don’t take my word for it. Do a google search for “Theology of the Body” Puritanism].

But finally, don’t bother if you don’t want to. I only brought up the term to help you. You indicated you wanted some help to understand opposing views (you said, “there’s not much I’ve learned intellectually on this topic that makes me think my gut is wrong (though I acknowledge this issue isn’t one I’ve given extensive thought to until fairly recently and I’m willing to hear anyone out on it”), and you lamented being opposed to Saint John Paul the Great. I only mentioned that movement in response to your query, indicating that as a possible explanation of the gulf between you and him. If you have discerned other reasons, I’m happy to hear that. There was nothing wrong in suggesting its potential influence, right? So if you fully discern it’s not applicable to you, don’t worry about it.

 

[edwest2]

I have worked as a professional editor as well. I’ll try to make it simpler for you so you can understand.

An Edenic vision is viewing Original Man and aspiring to that noble situation where one has an authentic vision of God’s beauty, unspoilt by concupiscence. It aspires to Original Innocence in thought, word, and deed. Purity.

A pure vision in art (or “using the medium of art”) is using art to achieve this Edenic vision.

Although I cannot name one off-hand, I’ve read several authors who have talked about the Catholic Church being a church of the “yes,” instead of a church of the Thou-Shalt-Nots. It’s certainly not my phraseology. Many non-theists see the Church or God as a bunch of old out-of-touch fuddy duddies saying what you can’t do. The perception of negativity does not inspire souls. Yes, some people need such a list, but more often than not people are inspired more by love. We exalt Mary’s “yes”, precisely for these reasons, asking God’s will be done. You can say “no pornography” while I can say “love authentically.” Both can result in the same action: purity of heart. Yours may be clearer, but far less people will relate to it. But if our mindset is only of things we cannot do, we will content ourselves in non-transgression (and often fail) instead of aspiring to heavenly things. Be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. That’s a better perspective than “do not do A,B,C,X,Y,Z.”

Thank you. I must disagree with your last paragraph. As a publisher, and like all publishers, we have “submission guidelines” that must be strictly followed. There is a publication that comes out every year that is a “best of” in the area of fantastic illustration. Instead of Fuddy-Duddies they have a jury of peers who say yes or no. There are standards that need to be met so not every piece submitted will pass peer review and the guidelines set for quality. It is assumed by us, and the publication I mentioned, that everyone is submitting only their best work. As opposed to anything less. If their work does not meet our standards then it is rejected, just like any other publisher would.

I sat in-house while one of our top artists was completing an illustration on one of our computers. I literally had to say, “do this, not that” and this particular rule needed to be followed. I was surprised when he said my name should be added to the credit of the illustration. In a way, like children, we need boundaries: do this but not that. As we journey on our way to purity we need guidance, including myself. Sometimes the answers to certain questions are not as obvious to some as it is to others.

Best,
Ed

 

[Eliza10]

I am just responding to the OP, I have not read the 11 pages of replies; so I am sorry if I repeat anything here.

I have done a lot of figure drawing and of course you use nude models. Its the best way to draw. An artists’ group hires a model and then advertises a figure drawing class, and artists “need” figure drawing to keep drawing well. Nothing is more beautiful than the human body, more complex. To immerse yourself in drawing, nothing inspires and challenges like a nude model. So the artists are there to draw. To see lights, darks, proportions, positive and negative spaces, to imagine the supporting bones and muscles keeping the figure in that position: to see, as an artist, and record that seeing on the paper. Time spent seeing as an artist makes one a better artist. I suppose in the same way making music and playing music keeps one getting better as a musician.

So its part of the profession of an artist and is not immoral. It doesn’t feel immoral, because it is not. However, one could *make *it immoral.

Very occasionally there is someone in the art class that is there for the wrong reasons (they want to gawk at a nude!). This is so rare, that I can truly say* it only happened once*. That person stuck out like a sore thumb! Everyone sensed it. The artists are aware of each other and each others works and someone who is not an artist is obvious and I am sure not welcome back. (never saw him again at that studio).

There are always breaks, as the model needs a break, robes up and move around, gets a drink or whatever, and the artists stop drawing and usually walk around and see what the other artists are doing. They want to learn from each other. So the odd guy was - odd. No one talked to the smiley guy trying to be oddly chummy with the other artists at break time, but instead, moved away from him, eyeing each other, like, “I don’t want to get near that guy.” Also, his work is not the work of a struggling artist, it is instead so bad that it is the work of someone* not *engaged in “seeing” as an artist in any way. There is nothing to learn by looking at his sketches; one only sees that his mind is completely somewhere else.

However, I now feel that if I ever had someone like that guy in a class again that everyone knew was there for the wrong reasons, I would be bold enough to say what we are all thinking, along the lines of, “I think you are here for the wrong reasons and I think you should leave.” (And maybe let the model know she can cover-up if she wants until he does!) Because the model needs to be defended.

 

[edwest2]

I am just responding to the OP, I have not read the 11 pages of replies; so I am sorry if I repeat anything here.

I have done a lot of figure drawing and of course you use nude models. Its the best way to draw. An artists’ group hires a model and then advertises a figure drawing class, and artists “need” figure drawing to keep drawing well. Nothing is more beautiful than the human body, more complex. To immerse yourself in drawing, nothing inspires and challenges like a nude model. So the artists are there to draw. To see lights, darks, proportions, positive and negative spaces, to imagine the supporting bones and muscles keeping the figure in that position: to see, as an artist, and record that seeing on the paper. Time spent seeing as an artist makes one a better artist. I suppose in the same way making music and playing music keeps one getting better as a musician.

So its part of the profession of an artist and is not immoral. It doesn’t feel immoral, because it is not. However, one could *make *it immoral.

Very occasionally there is someone in the art class that is there for the wrong reasons (they want to gawk at a nude!). This is so rare, that I can truly say* it only happened once*. That person stuck out like a sore thumb! Everyone sensed it. The artists are aware of each other and each others works and someone who is not an artist is obvious and I am sure not welcome back. (never saw him again at that studio).

There are always breaks, as the model needs a break, robes up and move around, gets a drink or whatever, and the artists stop drawing and usually walk around and see what the other artists are doing. They want to learn from each other. So the odd guy was - odd. No one talked to the smiley guy trying to be oddly chummy with the other artists at break time, but instead, moved away from him, eyeing each other, like, “I don’t want to get near that guy.” Also, his work is not the work of a struggling artist, it is instead so bad that it is the work of someone* not *engaged in “seeing” as an artist in any way. There is nothing to learn by looking at his sketches; one only sees that his mind is completely somewhere else.

However, I now feel that if I ever had someone like that guy in a class again that everyone knew was there for the wrong reasons, I would be bold enough to say what we are all thinking, along the lines of, “I think you are here for the wrong reasons and I think you should leave.” (And maybe let the model know she can cover-up if she wants until he does!) Because the model needs to be defended.

The better how to draw books made me realize that the differences in male and female body shapes are best solved by looking at a good book on cartooning/animation. I’m not joking. Me and a friend taught a semester at our old high school. If you look at heads and faces, for example, you’ll notice some are blocky or oblong. When you look at a face from the side, you see an almost straight line but with other faces, there might be a receding chin or a pointy chin or more pronounced cheek bones, and for women, variations in eyes, eyebrow shapes and noses. Some people have thin upper lips, others have about equal upper and lower lip thickness.

For me, I would, if I wanted but I don’t, need the perfect model to draw a particular face and figure. I’ve taken a life drawing class in college and I’ve seen dramatic differences in female body shapes, so what I was drawing was this specific person with their particular body characteristics. One book on drawing had a number of different eyebrow shapes, for example. In other words, if you look at classic animation, you will see the various human characters, depending on their role, have certain types of faces and body shapes.

Inventing a character is not that hard since you have a catalog of body shapes and facial shapes to create a fitting subject for a particular time period or a modern day setting.

Ed

 

[MRittenhouse]

I hope I have a useful thought for you, OP.

In a recent talk to a group of mothers, we confronted how to deal with youngsters (boys, mainly) who’ve been found seeking or collecting porn. How would we begin to help them see past the immediate appeal and understand why their pursuit wasn’t a good thing?

It came down to this: Were we looking at a God-made image, or a man-made image?

God made women’s bodies beautiful for good reasons. The sight of a woman’s figure when she is of childbearing age and condition co-opts a man’s attention. Unclothed, the shape arouses him. All this points him toward surrendering all he has (including his passion) to her. Next up: matrimony, offspring, etc. All good things.

By contrast, most man-made images exploit the female form for commercial purposes. That’s where corruption enters.

I would apply that thinking to your situation. Are you wanting to expose yourself for your own gratification? Or for the glory of God?

It’s true that there can be pure motivations for drawing/modeling of nudes. But personally, unless a nude representation is removed from reality to a certain extent (such as an abstraction, or a statue, which is obviously non-erotic in its intent), I find it difficult not to respond in an unchaste frame of mind. Perhaps this is because most of the man-made images out there are intended to arouse, and that’s mostly what comes to my mind when I think “nude.” That wasn’t true a hundred years ago, and even less before that.

So, proceed cautiously. Yes, someone had to model for Venus de Milo. But today she would make a lot more money posing for lingerie catalogs or … much worse.