Nude Modeling (yes, again)

[josh987654321]

Hi filiusdextris

I believe “FlamRatamecues” forgets that we left the Garden of Eden along time ago, among many other things that I believe would take me too long to reply to them all, so I hope you don’t mind if I just share the follow which I endorse that I believe may help.
What should be the Christian perspective on nudity in art?:

gotquestions.org/nudity-in-art.html

Answer: The Bible has much to say about the human body, which was not only created perfect by God, but also created unclothed. Adam and Eve were innocent in their nakedness, but when they sinned, “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (Genesis 3:7). Never before had they realized they were unclothed—the concepts of “clothed” and “unclothed” were meaningless to them. But sin affected their hearts and minds, creating vulnerability, guilt, and shame, and these things produced fear (verse 10). In their attempt to cover their spiritual shame, Adam and Eve intuitively covered their bodies. We should note that, when God took away their fig leaves—a sadly inadequate covering—He replaced them with something more permanent—animal skins (verse 21). Thus, God regarded clothing as appropriate and necessary in a fallen world.

We are not saying that the naked body is evil or repulsive; on the contrary, we see the body as a beautiful part of God’s creation. However, due to the fall, nudity now has implications of sinfulness attached to it. With few exceptions, the Bible presents nakedness as shameful and degrading (Genesis 9:21; Exodus 20:26; 32:25; 2 Chronicles 28:19; Isaiah 47:3; Ezekiel 16:35-36; Luke 8:27; Revelation 3:17; 16:15; 17:16). The only passages in which nudity is free of shame are those that describe Eden’s idyllic setting or that deal with marital relations (Proverbs 5:18-19; Song of Solomon 4).

In concert with biblical principles, most societies attach negative connotations to public nudity and place taboos on it. It is interesting, then, and somewhat puzzling, that those same societal taboos do not apply to artistic displays; a gallery may be full of nude statues, but the people viewing those statutes are required to be clothed.

So, Western culture has determined that nudity in art is permissible. What is the Christian perspective? Can nudity be used in a valid presentation of truth? Can artistic nudity be part of making a larger, legitimate point? For the Christian, does exercising “artistic license” justify portrayals of the nude human form?

Of course, all sorts of tangential questions also arise: What about partial nudity? Is a bare leg too suggestive? What about cleavage? If someone paints a scene from the Garden of Eden, how much shrubbery should surround the carefree couple? Does Michelangelo’s David need underwear? Where does “art” end and “pornography” begin? If lust occurs, whose fault is it—the artist’s, the viewer’s, or both?

We can’t answer these questions in all their particulars—we’ll leave that to individual conviction and conscience—but we can lay out some general principles concerning nudity in art. The first two we’ve already touched on:

1. The naked human body is not inherently sinful.
2. The Bible portrays public nudity as disgraceful.

To these we would add the following:

1. Lust is sin (Matthew 5:28; 1 John 2:16). We are responsible to guard our own hearts against lust. “Each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death” (James 1:14-15). We should make every effort to avoid whatever causes us to sin and make no provision for the flesh (Romans 13:14). This means that, if a visit to the art gallery arouses lust in the heart, then, by all means, stay out of the art gallery.

Related to this is our responsibility to guard against inciting lust in others. We realize that some Christian artists draw, paint or sculpt nudes, and they do so with a clear conscience. We are loath to pass judgment on anyone’s personal convictions; however, Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 are powerful passages on conviction, freedom, and stumbling blocks. We all bear a responsibility to our brothers and sisters in Christ, and the Christian artist must find a way to balance “artistic integrity” with his obligation not to obstruct the spiritual growth of others. To paraphrase 1 Corinthians 8:13, “If the art I create causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never create art again, so that I will not cause him to fall.”

1. Christians have been called to modesty (1 Timothy 2:9). In this matter, we wish to strike a balance between legalism and licentiousness. We don’t want an “anything goes” attitude, but neither do we want to wrap women in burqas. The basic guideline is for Christian women to dress “modestly, with decency and propriety.” Of course, this instruction is for living people and not for art, but perhaps there is a connection, if indeed art imitates life. Why would a Christian artist paint a model—who is to dress modestly—in an immodest way? Why should Christian art be held to a lower standard than the Christian himself?

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued:

1. Christians should have nothing to do with the evil that is pornography. It is true that our culture differentiates art and pornography, and we understand that artistic nudity does not necessarily equal pornography. But we must remember that we live in a fallen world. The legal definition of pornography—the attempt to quantify “obscenity” and gauge “salacious intent”—becomes meaningless when someone is lusting at a picture. It does not matter what the intent of the picture is—if it incites lust in someone’s heart, then there is a problem.

Some artists attempt to disassociate nudity from its sexual connotations and thereby justify depictions of the nude human form. These artists may be attempting to portray vulnerability or recapture a lost purity; they may be trying to promote an innocent appreciation of beauty or glorify the Creator of the body. We agree that humanity could use a little more recaptured purity and recognition of beauty, but we question whether artistic nudity is helpful in a society saturated with sex.

Jeremiah 17:9 warns us that “the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked.” Part of the heart’s deceit is self-deception, as we try to convince ourselves that we are not affected by sin, that we are somehow uncommonly resistant to the temptations “common to man” (1 Corinthians 10:13). That fact is, none of us are free from the influence of the flesh (Romans 7). It’s easy to say, objectively, that a certain nude image has artistic merit and communicates truth, but as fallen human beings, we all bring a measure of subjectivity into play. That subjectivity—combined with the emotional response that art seeks to induce—makes artistic nudity problematic, if not impossible.

1. Art, since it is created by morally responsible beings, is not morally neutral. It is a myth that art is inherently good simply because it is “art”; likewise, it is a myth that art is morally neutral, regardless of subject matter. We cannot evaluate art on mechanics or technique alone; we must also consider intent, theme, and subject matter. Philippians 4:8 can serve as a guide for judging the intangibles: is it true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, or praiseworthy? This is the standard to which Christian artists are called.

In the end, we would say that, if possible, nudity in art should be avoided. This may not correspond with the world’s thinking, but it should be no surprise to find the world at odds with biblical principles. By no means are we advocating a withdrawal from the art world. We earnestly need Christian artists, critics, and patrons. Neither are we saying that the study of art, human anatomy, or artistic nudity is a sinful pursuit. But we urge believers to be extremely careful when viewing nudity in art. Put on the full armor of God and stand against the devil’s schemes (Ephesians 6:11-18). And, for those creating the art, remember that God clothed Eden’s emigrants. What God has covered, let not man uncover.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I know this post wasn’t directed at me, but I hope you don’t mind if I answer.

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.

I think the main point is the grey that is always introduced in order to try and justify what is subconsciously known to be immoral (at least is for those who have not already been desensitized to it) and in this regard I very much like what robwar said -

The problem with always being on the edge is that you will fall over it.

I believe a little common sense goes a long way with things like this, and common sense tells me that training a woman to be comfortable with standing naked in front of a group of strangers is immoral and is a path to more immorality and sin. (I use the word training to point out that it’s not a natural thing to be doing, because precisely that, people have to work ‘up to it’ or ‘train’ themselves in being comfortable with it unless they have already been desensitized to it)

‘I won’t be doing any lingerie shots or anything like that.’ - Miranda Kerr 13

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.

No offense intended, but I for one don’t understand you.

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.

Less than a bikini? It increases my concerns,

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[edwest2]

The problem is that we end up becoming utter puritans (as in the sect that occupied the Massachusetts Bay Colony).

Do we censor the scenes in the Sistene Chapel? Do we put a fig leaf on Michelangelo’s David? Venus de Milo? Do we say that there will be no more Bottecellis? No more Allesandro Alloris? Do we, as a society, do the same as John Ashcroft in covering the Spirit of Justice?

Should we go find those works of the great masters that might possibly arouse somebody and burn them?

Or would it be more appropriate to actually do something about the pornification and over-sexualization of society so that people don’t automatically associate the form with uncontrollable sexual desire?

The whole point of 90% of the media is to hypersexualize everything it can. Just name most any movie or TV show. That remaining 10% may have other issues.

What’s wrong with observing what the Church teaches? I’m sure Jesus took His own words and turned them into proper action.

For most of the people out there, Artificial Birth Control means you cannot control your sexual desire at all. Which is totally false.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

Aside from sacred art, nude modeling serves no legitimate purpose. Only by returning to the sacred can people understand the fullness of the person.

Ed

 

[filiusdextris]

Hi Josh, I largely found that post you cited to be drivel. I guess that was harsh to say, but I wanted to cut to the chase. I promise to be polite from now on.

I could go on and on, but let’s take only the conclusion: “In the end, we would say that, if possible, nudity in art should be avoided.” In contrast, Saint John Paul the Great said in as many words “Let there be nudity” when the figures on the Sistine Chapel had already been expertly clothed. Now, it’s too facile to extrapolate from one situation to a broad rule (which your cited author frequently does), but it is certainly hard to reconcile John Paul’s words with such a spirit as that conclusion since it was very “possible” for the saint to have kept the status quo.

St. John Paul the Great takes the permissibility of the subject of nudity in art for granted in his discussions. That is not to say he doesn’t go to great lengths to outline the limits and the dangers of transgressing those limits, but he assumes the subject’s basic goodness.

"The artist who undertakes that theme [the body in its naked state]
in any sphere of art or through audiovisual media, must be aware of the full truth of the object, of the whole scale of values connected with it.

He could have easily said “this is morally illicit” anywhere in his essays but he did not. Why not? Note that this particular quote includes film (“audiovisual”), so it is not permissible to argue that he only meant clothed models that could be depicted nude.

He frequently points out that any sin involved is not intrinsic, but only in the order of the intention of the model/artist/producer/viewer. He also points out a couple of times how the subject of the body in its nakedness has been often treated by artists throughout history, as if that were a hint of its moral licitness.
St. John Paul the Great:

In the course of the various eras, beginning from antiquity—and above all in the great period of Greek classical art—there are works of art whose subject is the human body in its nakedness. The contemplation of this makes it possible to concentrate, in a way, on the whole truth of man, on the dignity and the beauty—also the “suprasensual” beauty—of his masculinity and femininity.

It is precisely nudity, and not some clothed versions of the human subject, that allows that last line. Please read it two or three more times. I’m guessing you’ve already read these four sermons of his, plus some of his other writings, but try to really soak in it anew.

Just because there is the possibility of great evil (lust), and just because this evil has a particular prevalence in our time of mass media consumption, is no reason for you or any other well-intentioned apologist to stamp out a model’s or artist’s sincere intention to create a gift of self to uphold and uplift the spirit of man in his search for truth and goodness of the body in all its dimensions. In fact, all to the contrary: our culture which is so saturated in lies about the body precisely and desperately needs such Christian artists and models to help counteract the lies and to be a beacon of light in the darkness. It’s a message that, unlike learned treatises, has a better than average chance (for reasons we can well imagine) of being a first taste of God’s goodness to them. The gospel of beauty is not a necessary gospel, it is indeed only a second-rate gospel behind the Holy Scriptures that contain the Eternal Word, but for fallen man, any port in a storm. The light it shines can well light up the City of God.

The post you cited has a lot of truth in it as well, but that only serves to give the illogical parts an aura of wisdom. The devil knows the best way to serve a lie is in a half-truth. I will try to rake up the energy to respond in a point-by-point basis in a later post.

 

[filiusdextris]

Aside from sacred art, nude modeling serves no legitimate purpose. Only by returning to the sacred can people understand the fullness of the person.

Ed

Hi Ed, the saintly pope disagrees with you. See quote from previous post. EDIT: actually, if you and he and I could discuss this together, I think there would be agreement as long as we can agree on the boundaries of what constitutes “sacred art.”

 

[filiusdextris]

Ok, josh, here’s some point-by point discussion on your last post (two posts here, then I’ll see if I can answer that longer post you quoted):

I think the main point is the grey that is always introduced in order to try and justify what is subconsciously known to be immoral (at least is for those who have not already been desensitized to it) and in this regard I very much like what robwar said – “The problem with always being on the edge is that you will fall over it.”].

Subconsciously known to be immoral? Yes, perhaps, if one’s subconscious is attacked by Manichean demons. The body is not evil. The display of the body, in itself, is not evil. St. John Paul the Great said in paragraph 2 of his sermon Art Must Not Violate the Right to Privacy that “It is obvious that in works of art, or in the products of audiovisual artistic reproduction, the above-mentioned constant destination to the gift, that is, that deep inscription of the meaning of the human body, can be violated only in the intentional order of the reproduction and the representation…” [emphasis mine]. It is thus not intrinsically evil, so don’t add or assume this subconscious gobbledygook.
If robwar had said “a problem” instead of “the” problem, I would have agreed. However, just because some activity has a lot of moral danger to it is not, alone, a sufficient analysis to avoid it. You have to go further in your reasoning. For example, a man doesn’t shirk from his duty to defend his family even if he reflects that there might be a real danger of letting anger overcome him. A good teacher doesn’t avoid the Truth (somewhat analogous here) even if that Truth may engender hardness of heart (sometimes the teacher does rightfully avoid a sensitive subject for this reason, but only under more specific circumstances that affect the prudence evaluation). A police detective doesn’t avoid exposure to child or adult pornography if that is the subject of his investigation. There has to be a proportional reason, prudence must dictate all avoidance-of-near-occasion-of-sin discussions. Could nude modelling be such a practice, too? The model has to judge himself or herself first, then prudently judge the recipient artist and any further recipients. If the model discerns that the causation element will be extremely high, and please note my causation tests in a previous post, then the model must abandon the art shoot. But the model need not assume an evil artist that will violate her dignity without anything to provoke that assumption. Furthermore, the nude model and artist may assume the great good of their honest intent, if such they have, will be accomplished. I already quoted St. John Paul the Great regarding this great potential good of nude modeling. In conclusion, the nude model has a discernment task, but it is licit to conclude, according to JP and common reasoning, that the reasons for modelling are sufficiently proportional against the dangers in some cases.

I believe a little common sense goes a long way with things like this, and common sense tells me that training a woman to be comfortable with standing naked in front of a group of strangers is immoral and is a path to more immorality and sin. (I use the word training to point out that it’s not a natural thing to be doing, because precisely that, people have to work ‘up to it’ or ‘train’ themselves in being comfortable with it unless they have already been desensitized to it)

Again, your use of the word “common sense” is analogous to “subconsciously known” above. This can be dangerous reasoning, especially in a complex area of discussion, as it attempts to take over the position without really reasoning through it, or trying to give undue weight to your tenuous conclusions.
I’m not sure we don’t have it in reverse as to what’s “natural” with regard to disrobing, as though we are fallen, we still have an Edenic taste, but I’ll let the point pass except to say that for the sake of argumentation the term is a bit loaded like the other two terms. I, for one, do not know of the battle the model must face in its intensity. But we can still describe the battle somewhat. He or she is facing the idea of shame, indeed the original shame, of nakedness. This points us to conclude that we should keep our clothes on, but again, if your reasoning stops here, your analysis is incomplete. Let’s quote the saintly pope again:
St. John Paul the Great:

Beyond the need of shame, that is, of the privacy of one’s own body (on which the biblical sources give such precise information in Genesis 3), there is a deeper norm. This norm is the gift, directed toward the very depths of the personal subject or toward the other person—especially in the man-woman relationship according to the perennial norms regulating the mutual donation.

Emphasis mine. Just because a nude model experiences some reluctance to disrobe doesn’t invalidate her desire to make a gift of his or her body to God and God’s ends for man on earth to experience and teach the fullness of that gift of mankind to one another. This gift is “especially” in the mutual self-sacrificial lovemaking of husband and wife. But the very fact that the saint would use the word “especially” above connotes that there are other ways to present the gift. His whole discussion of nudity in art is demonstrative of another way.

 

[filiusdextris]

Josh, here’s my comments on the rest of your last post.

‘I won’t be doing any lingerie shots or anything like that.’ - Miranda Kerr

You offer this, as if this were applicable to nude modeling. Dangerous reasoning. Some would also fault the source of your quote as an authority, but I always subscribe to consider the words themselves, not the messenger. (Yes, I’ve been cheating on this point by emphasizing the saintly aspects of JP2, but I’m more than happy to rely on the words themselves; at least I tell you I’ve been cheating.) Lingerie shots are commercial in purpose, for the most part, and so the calculus is entirely different than the question of Christian nude modelling. Because the value of the good is so low, the calculus only seems to be justified in the light of the very real dangers for lust if the product of the photo shoot is kept entirely within the store itself, though this does include, in my opinion, the store’s internet site. The point is that we should not be bombarded with these images which can invade our homes in the Sunday ads (in particular), exposing half-truths and full lies to our children before they’re properly equipped to battle in this area. The images themselves are good, but the intent behind them is suspect, and the potential for danger is just too high. In short, it would usually fail a cooperation-with-evil proportionality test. Unless a model is told that the images will be kept store-only, I can’t see them as justified. The internet store is justified since the causation element is again much lower. People who are innocent shoppers will appreciate the help, and those disposed to evil were either already in sin or would have found something else instead out there.

Less than a bikini? It increases my concerns.

Combining this quote with the above discussion on lingerie modeling, it appears that you have a skewed analysis. Lingerie/bikini shots can be far more dangerous than nudity, though this does not rise to the need to violate culture norms of modesty, whatever they may be. While there is always risk, if the artist or viewer is not sufficiently integrated in his or her understanding and practice of the theology of the body, it is not morally lawful for him to take up the topic in the first place, including beach excursions. Scant underwear will hardly save him if he suffers greatly in concupiscence, and will dangerously emphasize parts as against the whole of the person that would more likely corrupt his understanding further. The model I quoted in four posts also remarked about this phenomenon very eloquently. In criticizing toplessness or nudity, per se, and not as a violation of a cultural norm (remember, I had stated if it were truly included in the culture’s subjective definition of modesty), it suggests that you subconsciously think there are dirty body parts. If that’s the cases, that’s likely the error of Manicheism.

I can think of one exception in the prudence analysis to go to the beach anyway, where the causation element is lessened since the viewer is already steeped in lust. Without intending to sin, indeed to acquire purity, he combines educating himself with a natural battle when he otherwise can’t escape daily battles (internet access, immodest thoughts involving the women he passes on the street, etc.), but I don’t want to derail the thread further. I’ve already covered that more fully in other threads.

The point is not to underestimate the danger of the bikini or speedo (or whatever), especially compared to the sight of the naked body. It’s subtle, but there’s plenty of room for the devil to tempt with half-truths and morbid curiosity. This concern, again, does not override cultural norms of modesty.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Ed, the saintly pope disagrees with you. See quote from previous post. EDIT: actually, if you and he and I could discuss this together, I think there would be agreement as long as we can agree on the boundaries of what constitutes “sacred art.”

Boundaries regarding the human body are missing. If anything, one clear goal is to erase the idea of pornography and simply call it “art.” I’ve watched the trends closely. A woman poses in a bikini on a magazine cover and there is nothing else to see. A little while ago, some were saying that porn had gone “mainstream,” meaning it had become part of “popular” culture. I have a friend who collects great illustrations and books by great illustrators. This type of art has greater public exposure than what is called “fine art,” which I also follow closely. That and the fact that we deal with artists on a regular basis and have good relationships with some of the better illustrators working today. The majority of fine art deals in distortion and incomprehensibility. Even photography magazines have changed little since the 1980s. If there is a photograph of a woman on the cover, odds are that the centers of focus are her face and a particular body part or two. The pose and facial expression obviously do not convey the fullness of the person. When the person is reduced to body parts and poses and facial expressions that make that person only one dimensional then I am not interested.

St. Pope John Paul II obviously had a deep appreciation of the classical works of the masters and, I think, would instantly recognize works that were crass, vulgar and appealing primarily to man’s baser nature. The dignity of the human person would be missing from such work. And that has been the trend I have seen over the last 40 years: a dulling of man’s sensitivities, his civility and a proper view of the dignity of the human person as a whole. It was gradual but I watched it build, bit by bit, so that ‘hotness’ has replaced the ability to admire a depiction of the human form that goes beyond the exterior but that conveys the interior beauty at the same time. At one time, people were taught how to admire beauty and realize the boundaries. Today, I cannot think of any area of the arts where that is occurring. None. With the possible first signs of a crude form of sacred art, but in order to appreciate it properly, one has to have the proper orientation of heart and mind and sensitivities that are unknown or even fought against.The worst is being told to ignore those sensitivities.

For example, a book was recently published that featured older artwork that was lewd, vulgar, and designed to primarily depict the subject(s) in the sexual dimension. The whole point of the book was to encourage the viewer to enjoy the crass and vulgar, as if it was suddenly OK because the author/publisher thinks so. I don’t follow the positions of those who guide men away from the things I mentioned. In fact, one criticism of some of the older illustrations in a particular medium “showed no hint of sexuality.” That’s right - it was a bad thing for a talented illustrator to leave that out.

St. John Paul recognized the dignity of the nude in a complete way. Too many do not know how to look at such work or understand it fully. I have seen some fine nude sculptures in the past, but they had a heart and soul. Their pose and expression depicting something true and noble without crossing outside of certain boundaries. That is lacking today - missing. An appreciation for such work requires a teacher that can guide his students properly. I don’t know how many exist. We need to care and understand.

Ed

 

[filiusdextris]

Josh, this should wrap up my reflections on the passage you quoted. Fortunately, I had the time to address this. Two posts.

In concert with biblical principles, most societies attach negative connotations to public nudity and place taboos on it. It is interesting, then, and somewhat puzzling, that those same societal taboos do not apply to artistic displays; a gallery may be full of nude statues, but the people viewing those statutes are required to be clothed.

This is not a false dichotomy, as he suggests. Just because there is a normative behavior should not require us to conclude there are not exceptions to that norm. In fact, Saint John Paul the Great lists a major one that I will quote again:
"St. John Paul the Great:

Beyond the need of shame, that is, of the privacy of one’s own body (on which the biblical sources give such precise information in Genesis 3), there is a deeper norm. This norm is the gift, directed toward the very depths of the personal subject or toward the other person—especially in the man-woman relationship according to the perennial norms regulating the mutual donation.

Note how the potential for good in JP’s quotes is decisive in its merit for existence against the potential for evil. The Catholic Church has always been, and always will, a church of the ‘yes’. While there are sufficient reasons for teaching a list of Thou-Shalt-Nots at times, that is never to be the main emphasis, and we are unwise to cultivate that image as it alienates larger society unnecessarily. Man has always responded better to love than to burdens.

So, Western culture has determined that nudity in art is permissible. What is the Christian perspective?

The same is true, as I understand, for Eastern culture and African culture. I think only the Muslims fully forsake the practice in their art, hardly an exemplar we wish to uphold.

If you want the Christian perspective, read carefully, above all, the four sermons that St. John Paul the Great composed on the topic of nudity in art, and his larger treatise, The Theology of the Body.

We should make every effort to avoid whatever causes us to sin and make no provision for the flesh (Romans 13:14).

This is a very dubious way to cite a Bible passage, which only covers the last half of his statement. The first half is pure editorial, although solid advice generally, but it should have been separated from the rest.

Let’s use reason here. Who among us in modern culture can live a life of see no evil? We can’t avoid temptation. The internet, with all its dangers, is an inseparable link for many people. Others are constantly exposed to temptation to lust at work or school or doing ordinary activities like walking down the street. Some even have images emblazoned in the brain which will never leave them for the rest of their lives. God bless those few people who have sheltered lives and live in the ancient vestiges of Christendom – to them, I would say the above recommendation for avoidance is wise. But to the rest of us, I feel trying to ignore the problem is a part of what got most of us to a state of sinfulness in the first place. A lot of people talk about the lust bursting inside them in an uncontrollable urge. No, avoidance is not the best solution since prudence says it is a forlorn hope. Even the thoughts of avoidance when exposed carry emotional angst and confusion. In that case, we must learn to equip ourselves to battle this temptation head-on: first with prayer, then with study, and finally with real-life battles where we learn purity first-hand in natural settings. I can think of three major cases: beaches, museums, and art studios. In another thread on here a few months ago, I recommended on a very limited basis and only in an abstract way a virtual art museum if those three were options were unavailable (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12435572&postcount=29). In these places, the student of purity can do a natural activity where he can contemplate the full dimensions of the gift of the body, to see the body object as a subject in the eyes of God the Father Creator. This is quite likely the best path for many (at least for some) to learn purity.

 

[filiusdextris]

Post 2 of 2.

Related to this is our responsibility to guard against inciting lust in others. We realize that some Christian artists draw, paint or sculpt nudes, and they do so with a clear conscience. We are loath to pass judgment on anyone’s personal convictions; however, Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 are powerful passages on conviction, freedom, and stumbling blocks. We all bear a responsibility to our brothers and sisters in Christ, and the Christian artist must find a way to balance “artistic integrity” with his obligation not to obstruct the spiritual growth of others. To paraphrase 1 Corinthians 8:13, “If the art I create causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never create art again, so that I will not cause him to fall.”

Again, the analysis is very shallow. Yes, because of the dangers, the Christian nude model must practice discernment with prudence, but that does not necessarily foreclose against the possibility of continuing. The model need not assume, from the beginning, a lack of purity on behalf of the artist. In fact, the wise Christian nude model from whom I quoted extensively earlier went out of her way to mitigate against this possibility by reminding all the students beforehand that she was a child of God, not to be objectified. Read her passage again. Anecdotal evidence suggests the artist has too much work to do to be bothered with lust. Also, causality is nebulous since if it were not for the Christian nude model, another model instead would have been selected, so the Christian model’s gift can reduce the overall evil that might transpire.

Christians have been called to modesty (1 Timothy 2:9). In this matter, we wish to strike a balance between legalism and licentiousness. We don’t want an “anything goes” attitude, but neither do we want to wrap women in burqas. The basic guideline is for Christian women to dress “modestly, with decency and propriety.” Of course, this instruction is for living people and not for art, but perhaps there is a connection, if indeed art imitates life. Why would a Christian artist paint a model—who is to dress modestly—in an immodest way? Why should Christian art be held to a lower standard than the Christian himself?

The author is very wise to remind the shallow-thinking artist that this is a real model with real weaknesses and very much a child of God made in His image. St. John Paul points out these dangers with incisive language. But the danger does not necessitate a conclusion. “Art imitates life” is too shallow an analysis. St. John Paul also points out the duty on behalf of the artist to warn of the dangers in his artwork: “The creation of the image, in the broad and differentiated sense of the term, imposes on the author, artist or reproducer, obligations not only of an aesthetic, but also of an ethical nature” [Ethical Responsibilities in Art, para. 7]. The clothed person walking around in real life, need not do so.

We agree that humanity could use a little more recaptured purity and recognition of beauty, but we question whether artistic nudity is helpful in a society saturated with sex.

This is precisely the reason to treat the subject. It helps us to dialog with our nonChristian neighbor. It can be salvific, reversing our culture’s prurient influences. And again, the danger is far less, since it merely asks questions to which we would be exposed anyways (unless someone is uniquely sheltered, see above). It is better for the Christian artist to give his or her treatment than to let the nihilist have the field unchallenged.

Jeremiah 17:9 warns us that “the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked.” Part of the heart’s deceit is self-deception, as we try to convince ourselves that we are not affected by sin, that we are somehow uncommonly resistant to the temptations “common to man” (1 Corinthians 10:13). That fact is, none of us are free from the influence of the flesh (Romans 7). It’s easy to say, objectively, that a certain nude image has artistic merit and communicates truth, but as fallen human beings, we all bring a measure of subjectivity into play. That subjectivity—combined with the emotional response that art seeks to induce—makes artistic nudity problematic, if not impossible.

Ok, it’s problematic. Indeed, as pointed out, tuning ourselves to the subtle motivations of the heart is one of the most essential skills that we can learn. Is that the end of the analysis? If and when we fall into lust, we go to confession to reconcile ourselves with the Lord. Since other factors already discussed suggest the battle is a good one to enjoin, it doesn’t follow that the potential problems necessitate we avoid the battle only to enter a largely-futile avoidance quest.

Philippians 4:8 can serve as a guide for judging the intangibles: is it true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, or praiseworthy? This is the standard to which Christian artists are called.

Jesus taught us to judge a tree by its fruits. It is incumbent upon each who takes up this battle for purity or who merely seeks to discern further God’s truths and beauty as to whether we are brought higher or lower overall by our involvement in the process. The answer will not be the same for everyone.

Finally, I addressed the conclusion in a prior post.

 

[filiusdextris]

Ed, your argument is historical not deductive. I will agree with you that 99.9% of so-called “art” depicting nudity, and that might be a really low percentage compared to the true amount, is nothing more than pornography. The lustful intent likely resists in model, artist, producer, and consumer all at the same time in most cases.

But I will fight for truth’s sake for that 0.1%, or whatever it is, for those Christian models and artists out there who truly fight the good fight to reclaim God’s truths and beauty in the artistic sphere. Other than the words of some unknown internet poster whom I quoted earlier (FlamRatamacues), and one other poster on the same thread whom I did not quote, I don’t know of any modern model or artist who fits the bill. I certainly have not seen any sufficiently qualifying art work, even though I’ve spent some time looking.

I do know of a few non-Christian modern artists from an art gallery who come close in their treatment of model as subject with full human dignity, but not enough that I would publicly endorse their work for fear of scandal. I really wish I could, but the danger is too great.

I really wish some artist who lives and breathes John Paul’s words would treat the garden of Eden in a mega blockbuster film. I feel that would be a powerful message to draw more souls to the Church. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any plans.

Well, even if I have not met such an artist or art work, I will not lose hope that it either exists or will exist in the future. I will do my best not to condemn them before they start. Perhaps, you, Ed, as an artist, are the one holy soul whom I am seeking in this regard. If I am unsuccessful in my quest, that is ok - as I’ve said several times, the quest for beauty is only a second-rate Gospel and Holy Scripture is more than sufficient - but I’d be very overjoyed and humbled if I ever could behold some sublime modern Christian art treating this amazing subject.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, your argument is historical not deductive. I will agree with you that 99.9% of so-called “art” depicting nudity, and that might be a really low percentage compared to the true amount, is nothing more than pornography. The lustful intent likely resists in model, artist, producer, and consumer all at the same time in most cases.

But I will fight for truth’s sake for that 0.1%, or whatever it is, for those Christian models and artists out there who truly fight the good fight to reclaim God’s truths and beauty in the artistic sphere. Other than the words of some unknown internet poster whom I quoted earlier (FlamRatamacues), and one other poster on the same thread whom I did not quote, I don’t know of any modern model or artist who fits the bill. I certainly have not seen any sufficiently qualifying art work, even though I’ve spent some time looking.

I do know of a few non-Christian modern artists from an art gallery who come close in their treatment of model as subject with full human dignity, but not enough that I would publicly endorse their work for fear of scandal. I really wish I could, but the danger is too great.

I really wish some artist who lives and breathes John Paul’s words would treat the garden of Eden in a mega blockbuster film. I feel that would be a powerful message to draw more souls to the Church. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any plans.

Well, even if I have not met such an artist or art work, I will not lose hope that it either exists or will exist in the future. I will do my best not to condemn them before they start. Perhaps, you, Ed, as an artist, are the one holy soul whom I am seeking in this regard. If I am unsuccessful in my quest, that is ok - as I’ve said several times, the quest for beauty is only a second-rate Gospel and Holy Scripture is more than sufficient - but I’d be very overjoyed and humbled if I ever could behold some sublime modern Christian art treating this amazing subject.

I am guardedly hopeful. I just know too many artists who have a worldly, secular outlook. That was not meant to belittle, I’m just stating the fact of the matter. It would be nice if there was a magazine titled Christian or Catholic Artist, so we could encourage one another and have all the work in one place. But to meet Catholic standards, those running it would only select those works that are the best in all categories: color, black and white, sculpture, ceramics and so on.

There is this University: jpcatholic.com/
Perhaps those interested should contact them.

I recently saw some restored artwork for a Church in Europe. It was beautiful but nowhere are the artists named. The skill and craftsmanship felt holy - inspiring worship. Unfortunately, I cannot recall the name of the Church or how I found the photo.

Ed

 

[gigi4747]

“And, for those creating the art, remember that God clothed Eden’s emigrants.”

This sentence resonates for me. If I were an artist, using an undressed person, especially knowing that I’d be exposing that person to others, if even just in a representational form (as opposed to a photo), would feel creepy and voyeuristic to me. It would feel like a violation. I guess I’ve always felt intuitively that nudity in art arises in many cases more from the artist’s disorder than a good place, no matter how phenomenally talented the artist is; 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). But if my instincts put me at odds with the vision of John Paul “the Great” or whomever else, then so be it. Having one particular perspective on this issue is not a non-negotiable of the Faith, as far as I can tell.

That said, I’m not sure my sensibilities really do put me at odds with Catholics of the past. Weren’t Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel nudes (for example) covered for centuries? Are we really to draw the conclusion that everyone prior to John Paul II was “wrong” on this issue? Seems like Catholics have the latitude to disagree here.

 

[edwest2]

“And, for those creating the art, remember that God clothed Eden’s emigrants.”

This sentence resonates for me. If I were an artist, using an undressed person, especially knowing that I’d be exposing that person to others, if even just in a representational form (as opposed to a photo), would feel creepy and voyeuristic to me. It would feel like a violation. I guess I’ve always felt intuitively that nudity in art arises in many cases more from the artist’s disorder than a good place, no matter how phenomenally talented the artist is; 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). But if my instincts put me at odds with the vision of John Paul “the Great” or whomever else, then so be it. Having one particular perspective on this issue is not a non-negotiable of the Faith, as far as I can tell.

That said, I’m not sure my sensibilities really do put me at odds with Catholics of the past. Weren’t Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel nudes (for example) covered for centuries? Are we really to draw the conclusion that everyone prior to John Paul II was “wrong” on this issue? Seems like Catholics have the latitude to disagree here.

I think hard, clear rules need to apply. I know way too many people, including artists, who want to do it their way or if challenged, find a way to do it their way. The media, whether they know it or not, is teaching them this. The average art school is not about teaching you how to master your craft but to join their mindset, which has cult-like aspects. St. John Paul was quite specific regarding boundaries. Those need to be set.

I don’t like the idea of latitude one bit. Vagueness is not a good idea. So, for example, say that someone submitted their painting to a fictional publication which I’ll call Catholic Art in Review. There should be at least a few highly qualified people examining the painting and deciding if it falls within the guidelines that have been established. Perhaps they can suggest changes which the artist can accept or decline, or simply reject the art.

Here’s an article that I think will be helpful:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204806.htm

Best,
Ed

 

[filiusdextris]

“And, for those creating the art, remember that God clothed Eden’s emigrants.”

This sentence resonates for me. If I were an artist, using an undressed person, especially knowing that I’d be exposing that person to others, if even just in a representational form (as opposed to a photo), would feel creepy and voyeuristic to me. It would feel like a violation. I guess I’ve always felt intuitively that nudity in art arises in many cases more from the artist’s disorder than a good place, no matter how phenomenally talented the artist is; 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). But if my instincts put me at odds with the vision of John Paul “the Great” or whomever else, then so be it. Having one particular perspective on this issue is not a non-negotiable of the Faith, as far as I can tell.

That said, I’m not sure my sensibilities really do put me at odds with Catholics of the past. Weren’t Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel nudes (for example) covered for centuries? Are we really to draw the conclusion that everyone prior to John Paul II was “wrong” on this issue? Seems like Catholics have the latitude to disagree here.

Gigi, I commend you for thinking critically and independently on this, and not letting John Paul’s greatness sway you apart from his words. But definitely consider the words themselves, and whether truth and wisdom resides in them. What Catholic teachings have historically been to the contrary? The Baltimore Catechism? Maybe, and that has a nihil obstat, but it was intended for a general audience including young minds, and not meant to be a scholarly treatment of the subject of avoiding the near occasion of sin. It was certainly written in a different era for that era. If you’ll recall, I’ve said several times that if we still lived in the era of Christendom, as early 20th-century America could be so construed, the analysis would have been very, very different. With secularism having such a dominant hand in the culture wars over the last hundred years, to impose a standard on Catholics as a practical matter that is more restrictive than the dominant culture’s stance, is, at least, arguably unwise. John Paul’s Catechism, recommending a subjective standard of modesty, reflects this prudence. Remember that the sin involved, lust, exists only on the order of the intention, so these matters do not involve intrinsic sin, and so the norms can be flexible from one time and place to another.

Please reflect on how America especially has been affected by the iron grip of Puritanical repressive tendencies in this area, and consider the influence this Protestant teaching has enjoyed in our country.

Finally, to answer one new issue you brought up here, if you were an artist considering whether to use a nude model, I would caution you that you indeed have a strong ethical responsibility to inform the model of the dangers, and to fully verify that the model shares your authentic Christian vision and still wants to make a gift of his or her body to support that vision.

I appreciate our dialog here.

 

[edwest2]

Gigi, I commend you for thinking critically and independently on this, and not letting John Paul’s greatness sway you apart from his words. But definitely consider the words themselves, and whether truth and wisdom resides in them. What Catholic teachings have historically been to the contrary? The Baltimore Catechism? Maybe, and that has a nihil obstat, but it was intended for a general audience including young minds, and not meant to be a scholarly treatment of the subject of avoiding the near occasion of sin. It was certainly written in a different era for that era. If you’ll recall, I’ve said several times that if we still lived in the era of Christendom, as early 20th-century America could be so construed, the analysis would have been very, very different. With secularism having such a dominant hand in the culture wars over the last hundred years, to impose a standard on Catholics as a practical matter that is more restrictive than the dominant culture’s stance, is, at least, arguably unwise. John Paul’s Catechism, recommending a subjective standard of modesty, reflects this prudence. Remember that the sin involved, lust, exists only on the order of the intention, so these matters do not involve intrinsic sin, and so the norms can be flexible from one time and place to another.

Please reflect on how America especially has been affected by the iron grip of Puritanical repressive tendencies in this area, and consider the influence this Protestant teaching has enjoyed in our country.

Finally, to answer one new issue you brought up here, if you were an artist considering whether to use a nude model, I would caution you that you indeed have a strong ethical responsibility to inform the model of the dangers, and to fully verify that the model shares your authentic Christian vision and still wants to make a gift of his or her body to support that vision.

I appreciate our dialog here.

“iron grip of Puritanical repressive tendencies”? That is the same thing pornographers wanted destroyed. Standards are a must. When one refers to Classics regarding books or masterpieces regarding art, nobody can say that zero standards were employed. The whole point of the Hippie/Anarchist movement was to destroy “oppression.” What did that mean? Smoke dope and use other illegal drugs. Live with and have sex with your girlfriend or anyone else who rejected moral standards. “Don’t trust anyone over 30!”

I recall hearing the following whenever anybody complained in the past about changes in music. The DJ would always reply, “It’s tame by today’s standards.” What standards? The goal was to keep eliminating standards and “push the envelope,” “break down taboos” and “no limits.” Where are we culturally today? In the sewer. Pornography? No big deal. Strip clubs? No big deal. Dysfunctional cartoons/movies/TV shows? Those “values on which we used to rely.”? In the toilet. Who cares anymore.

Cuss, swear, love porn, have lots of sex and put that on TV and in the movies. Graphic porn is just one of those things. What’s wrong with it? Or “So and so poses topless here.” That I saw on a “news” site. Wake up. Don’t accept depravity, especially sexual deviancy in the so-called arts. WAKE UP.

Standards are a must, especially if you are a Catholic. And these standards should come from the Church herself.

Ed

 

[filiusdextris]

“iron grip of Puritanical repressive tendencies”? That is the same thing pornographers wanted destroyed. Standards are a must. When one refers to Classics regarding books or masterpieces regarding art, nobody can say that zero standards were employed. The whole point of the Hippie/Anarchist movement was to destroy “oppression.” What did that mean? Smoke dope and use other illegal drugs. Live with and have sex with your girlfriend or anyone else who rejected moral standards. “Don’t trust anyone over 30!”

I recall hearing the following whenever anybody complained in the past about changes in music. The DJ would always reply, “It’s tame by today’s standards.” What standards? The goal was to keep eliminating standards and “push the envelope,” “break down taboos” and “no limits.” Where are we culturally today? In the sewer. Pornography? No big deal. Strip clubs? No big deal. Dysfunctional cartoons/movies/TV shows? Those “values on which we used to rely.”? In the toilet. Who cares anymore.

Cuss, swear, love porn, have lots of sex and put that on TV and in the movies. Graphic porn is just one of those things. What’s wrong with it? Or “So and so poses topless here.” That I saw on a “news” site. Wake up. Don’t accept depravity, especially sexual deviancy in the so-called arts. WAKE UP.

Standards are a must, especially if you are a Catholic. And these standards should come from the Church herself.

Ed

The Pope can bind, on pain of sin, an artificial standard if he so wishes on modesty in any number of different situations. Or he can defer to cultural norms. The Pope cannot rewrite God’s laws, and obviously Jesus’s command against lust is paramount. That is a binding standard that is life-giving and welcome. Unnecessary swearing, drugs, porn, sex outside of marriage violate simple gospel standards, and I have no clue why you bring them up, as if someone called for them to be set aside. You didn’t get that from me.

What’s wrong with wanting to destroy the “iron grip of Puritanical repressive tendencies”? What’s wrong with the pornographers wanting (allegedly?) to destroy the same thing? If I concede the point (and I have no clue what their motivations are so to do so is a bit unfair of me to judge), that is not the same as me wanting to call for the same thing but to replace it with the language of love that espouses God’s truth for the full dimension of unitotality of the person body and soul as a beloved child of God. Their message and my echoing of John Paul’s Catholic message are about as far as black is from white, and you do wrong to conflate the two.

A manicheistic Puritanical view denies the goodness of the body. It wallows in negativity choosing to reflect on the worst of human behavior instead of trying to instill the best of human idealism in all. It suggests that we are reprobate, and completely incapable of lifting ourselves out of the morass of sin. It denies the ability to achieve purity in this lifetime. No sir, that attitude is to be rejected. Don’t even make a show of defending it. If you get to the right act for the wrong reasons (modesty out of rejection of the body’s goodness in all its dimensions), what merit does your act gain? Instead, St. John Paul the Great’s call for personal holiness, making allowances, when prudent, for the quest to achieve (primarily through artistic means) the Edenic vision of the natural goodness of the body is to be commended. His vision allows for a responsible ethic of modesty in daily living while allowing room for the pure vision in art. The Catholic Church must be a church of the yes whenever possible, working all things in perfect love.

 

[edwest2]

The Pope can bind, on pain of sin, an artificial standard if he so wishes on modesty in any number of different situations. Or he can defer to cultural norms. The Pope cannot rewrite God’s laws, and obviously Jesus’s command against lust is paramount. That is a binding standard that is life-giving and welcome. Unnecessary swearing, drugs, porn, sex outside of marriage violate simple gospel standards, and I have no clue why you bring them up, as if someone called for them to be set aside. You didn’t get that from me.

What’s wrong with wanting to destroy the “iron grip of Puritanical repressive tendencies”? What’s wrong with the pornographers wanting (allegedly?) to destroy the same thing? If I concede the point (and I have no clue what their motivations are so to do so is a bit unfair of me to judge), that is not the same as me wanting to call for the same thing but to replace it with the language of love that espouses God’s truth for the full dimension of unitotality of the person body and soul as a beloved child of God. Their message and my echoing of John Paul’s Catholic message are about as far as black is from white, and you do wrong to conflate the two.

A manicheistic Puritanical view denies the goodness of the body. It wallows in negativity choosing to reflect on the worst of human behavior instead of trying to instill the best of human idealism in all. It suggests that we are reprobate, and completely incapable of lifting ourselves out of the morass of sin. It denies the ability to achieve purity in this lifetime. No sir, that attitude is to be rejected. Don’t even make a show of defending it. If you get to the right act for the wrong reasons (modesty out of rejection of the body’s goodness in all its dimensions), what merit does your act gain? Instead, St. John Paul the Great’s call for personal holiness, making allowances, when prudent, for the quest to achieve (primarily through artistic means) the Edenic vision of the natural goodness of the body is to be commended. His vision allows for a responsible ethic of modesty in daily living while allowing room for the pure vision in art. The Catholic Church must be a church of the yes whenever possible, working all things in perfect love.

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