Nudity as sacred art, photography as pornography? Christian Nudity?

[ben_dy]

There’s a discussion going in the Non-Catholic Religion forum about an article posted here - news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051205/od_nm/erotic_bible_dc;_ylt=AtcIp3Xw3x5C3uyq8z56mP8SH9EA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl - which begins “A German Protestant youth group has put together a 2006 calendar with 12 staged photos depicting erotic scenes from the Bible, including a bare-breasted Delilah cutting Samson’s hair and a nude Eve offering an apple.”

It’s a short little blurb and, to be honest, I paid it little mind until I began thinking about all the nudity seen in churches throughout parts of Europe (think Sistine Chapel, for example) and whether a photograph of a living woman portraying Eve with a bare breast is any more scandalous - and, if so, why - than a Renaissance painting of a model portraying Eve with a bare breast. I am no art nor pornography expert but I’m wondering if one medium is so different than the other so that one might be considered art while the other blasphemous… is it technology that makes it so or can both aspire to be considered ‘art’? Or is it a matter of ‘timing’?

The article is really of little interest - it’s a gimmick to sell calendars, not Christianity. And while I agree that there is a slight bit of the ‘erotic’ in the Bible (think of being 12 years old and reading the Song of Songs) I don’t mean for that to be the theme of this message. I’m hoping to get response to this question: if we have (and I believe that we do) sacred art which features scantily clad men and women, can we have sacred art in the photographic medium which does the same?

I am also speculating that we may be so acclimatized to specific Renaissance artwork so that something that appears to be a Renaissance work - even if a photograph were passed off as a faux fresco for example (yes, you really can do anything with Photoshop!), reproduced and said to adorn a chapel in Genoa we may well accept it, even though it is a complete fabrication, whereas if a photographer admitted to creating the piece we may find, with knowledge of subterfuge, the work to be blasphemous (or nothing we’d want adorning our churches or even homes, anyway).

What makes Greco-inspired Renaissance nudity a thing of beauty and worthy of our churches while a photo of same might be considered pornographic? I’'m hoping that someone is more familiar with the ‘theology of the body’ works and that, perhaps, JPII or others addressed this, or a similar, topic.

 

[Matt_Collins]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought, “Oh, brother. This is gonna be interesting.” And I was right.

You pose some very interesting questions. I never thought about whether modern media like photography and film make a difference, but perhaps it does. The realism provided by the camera might put it in a different category, but I tend to think not. Some of the old masters got pretty realistic and graphic, yet we do seem to accept those works of art precisely as that: works of art.

I wonder if the real line between works of art and pornography is this: Is its intention to edify, or to titillate? Most of us can tell the difference fairly easily.

“Edify” can be fairly broad in its meaning. Certainly teaching something important (such as the fact of original sin) is edifying. Communicating the beauty of sex and its necessary connection with love can be edifying. Teaching about anatomy (as in medical illustration artwork) can be edifying. Even teaching about the depths of depravity to which we all are subject to falling can be edifying.

I’ve always been turned off by people who are so puritanical that they can’t see any reason for nudity in art at all. I’m thinking of how John Ashcroft had a statue of Lady Justice covered because it showed a bare breast. That’s simply absurd.

Anyway, I think you raise some very good questions, and I’m looking forward to the discussion I’m sure will follow.

BTW, I have not viewed the calendar mentioned in the original post, so my comments above should not be construed as saying I think what they’ve done is OK. My comments are directed to the general question of nudity and sex in art.

 

[papa_k]

My background is Art History, and we were taught that a “nude” figure is very different from a “naked” one. These two terms are the essence of the distinction that is being covered (rather uncovered) by the subject.

Formally speaking, a nude is a generalized, idealized figure, which may represent a real historical person, or even a vague concept (like Justice or Liberty or Victory), but has no actual resemblence to a real person. It is not a portrait in that sense. It is not personal. In this case, the viewer is rather detached from having a physical, carnal response to the subject.

A naked figure is a real and specific person, and is recognizable. Photographic “nudes” can scarcely avoid being a naked image.

Further, nakedness is an exposed, compromised, helpless condition which is further exascerbated by skimpy, half-removed garments. These renderings only serve to excite the senses, in any medium. The appeal is to the male and his sense of control.

As to the Renaissance greco-roman style work, esp. what you’d find in Italy - these figures tend more toward the realm of the nude. They are mostly innocent. But the older I get, the more I am not a fan of it, or at least as far as church art goes. None of the nudes of Michelangelo, etc, stir me in a carnal way, so it is not about that. I just question the usefulness or appropriateness in an ecclesial setting. I think people should dress up, not down, for Mass, so why is the art nude? Not logical to me. My guess is that it is a culture born out of a persistent Italian (Roman) humanistic attitude which glorifies man and humanity physically, not spiritually.

But that is just my opinion.

 

[steveandersen]

Like the old saying goes, the distinction between art and pornography is one of those things that is hard to define but you know it when you see it.

I don’t have papa_k’s art history background but I’ve seen photographic nudes that were not scandalous at all. Anything from National Geographic to fine arts.

The human form is one of the wonders of Creation and depictions of it (regardless of the medium) can be quite beautiful. After all a sunset is no less beautiful if you take a picture of it rather than make a representation of it.

I would like to think that most of us can make the distinction between depictions of the body that are innocent, necessary for the story, or otherwise appropriate and those that are prurient

That being said, I’m sure there are some people who can make a big deal of the Sears catalog or even an anatomy book.

 

[ben_dy]

Matt Collins:

I wonder if the real line between works of art and pornography is this: Is its intention to edify, or to titillate? Most of us can tell the difference fairly easily.

I agree - and when visiting, as I believe I mentioned, the Sistine Chapel the art of the barely clad is not even close to titillating: it’s awesome in a glorious way so that one appreciates the human form for the complexity God gave it and not for any base reason at all. One difference between a Michelangelo and even the finest photographer is that a a Michelangelo must be an anatomist as well as an artist - even if using models, he or she must interpret (as just one example) the stretch of a long thigh muscle where the photographer must work with what he has, making adjustments with light, shading, and possibly make-up (and Photoshop filters - but that presents another problem!). In one way that speaks against the photographer as artist and photography as art although I tend to think that photography can be art. But if photography was my medium and I wished to re-present a Michelangelo on film (or in pixels!) or even wished to re-present the crucifixion with a nude Christ (as he surely was - that draping of cloth is surely there for modesty’s sake and not reality) if my work was as inspirational as anything ever done, would it be accepted as religious art, sacred art? I do not know and, as I said, am neither an art or pornography enthusiast and can only make the observations that you’'ve made - I know if I see pornography (and am thankful that ‘anti pop-up window’ technology has come so far!).
Matt Collins:

I’ve always been turned off by people who are so puritanical that they can’t see any reason for nudity in art at all. I’m thinking of how John Ashcroft had a statue of Lady Justice covered because it showed a bare breast. That’s simply absurd.

I was thinking of Ashcroft each time I used the term ‘bare breast’ - and how he was horrified to be photographed and televised with Justice’s ‘bare breast’ exposed.

BTW, I have not viewed the calendar mentioned in the original post, so my comments above should not be construed as saying I think what they’ve done is OK. My comments are directed to the general question of nudity and sex in art.

I attempted to view the website, but all I saw was a blank page - no text, no advertisements, no racy photos, just a blank page: so no one, really, is in a position to judge what these people may be really intending as the ‘message’ is just ‘talk’ at this point. The article, to me, raised larger issues than a calendar with nudity depicting Biblical events and personalities.

I am hoping to hear from those more knowledgeable about art and about the theology of the body! While my heart tells me that what these young people are attempting is a shallow gimmick, if they save one soul by doing what they are doing, how can I be anything but self-righteous in condemnation?

 

[ben_dy]

papa_k:

My background is Art History, and we were taught that a “nude” figure is very different from a “naked” one. These two terms are the essence of the distinction that is being covered (rather uncovered) by the subject.

Formally speaking, a nude is a generalized, idealized figure, which may represent a real historical person, or even a vague concept (like Justice or Liberty or Victory), but has no actual resemblence to a real person. It is not a portrait in that sense. It is not personal. In this case, the viewer is rather detached from having a physical, carnal response to the subject.

A naked figure is a real and specific person, and is recognizable. Photographic “nudes” can scarcely avoid being a naked image.

Further, nakedness is an exposed, compromised, helpless condition which is further exascerbated by skimpy, half-removed garments. These renderings only serve to excite the senses, in any medium. The appeal is to the male and his sense of control.

As to the Renaissance greco-roman style work, esp. what you’d find in Italy - these figures tend more toward the realm of the nude. They are mostly innocent. But the older I get, the more I am not a fan of it, or at least as far as church art goes. None of the nudes of Michelangelo, etc, stir me in a carnal way, so it is not about that. I just question the usefulness or appropriateness in an ecclesial setting. I think people should dress up, not down, for Mass, so why is the art nude? Not logical to me. My guess is that it is a culture born out of a persistent Italian (Roman) humanistic attitude which glorifies man and humanity physically, not spiritually.

But that is just my opinion.

And a quite good and informed opinion and PRECISELY what I was hoping someone would be able to explain to one as ignorant as myself! What makes the most recognizable sense, to me, in what you wrote is how the humanism of the Renaissance was able to blur the distinction that you make between a ‘nude’ and a ‘naked figure’. The images in the Sistine Chapel are a blended nude/naked figure - representative of men and God. But I am always struck by the muscle complexity, for instance, and find portions of the work truly awe inspiring. Definitely nothing carnal - and a bit more than humanism, really, for it does show the care of our Creator.

You’ve given me “the” answer thus far - I’d like to see what others have to say but I rather think you’ve pegged this question spot on!

 

[Matt_Collins]

ben_dy:

While my heart tells me that what these young people are attempting is a shallow gimmick, if they save one soul by doing what they are doing, how can I be anything but self-righteous in condemnation?

If they save one soul, but lead 10,000 others into mortal sin, it’s hard to see how it could be considered art. Again, without seeing the calendar, I suspect it’s the “work” of a misguided youth minister, at best, and an excuse for a pederast at worst.

While I said in a previous post that I don’t think the medium of photography necessarily makes nudity pornography, I think it is reasonable to believe that the realism normally associated with photography makes it somewhat more difficult for it not to be titillating. So even if it can be considered art, one should be very prudent in viewing (or creating) it. I would think it would take an exceptional artist to photographically portray the same scenes Michelangelo did in the Sistine Chapel.

 

[papa_k]

Matt Collins:

I would think it would take an exceptional artist to photographically portray the same scenes Michelangelo did in the Sistine Chapel.

At risk of starting a tangent, I do not think this would be possible. Michelangelo did not, to my knowledge, use female models. His “women” are males with breasts, and softened features.

As an anatomist, much of his painted work, esp. minor figures, are more like amalgations of his range of experience dealing with varied (almost exclusively male) subjects. The faces are from his imagination, blended with what he actually knew about their anatomies. A person viewing this is as detached from sensuality as the artist was who did it.

Medical photography, as well as nature photography, can distance itself pretty much from titillation, but even itself runs the risk of being overly interesting, esp. to adolescents or other people who are weak in that way, the type of which used to like those National Geographic pictures of tribal peoples. And this is because the images involve actual persons with real identities, and the mind somehow has unconcious (and unrealistic)ambitions involving these vulnerable, real people, while it seems not to when viewing vacant, non-persons (in real art) who have nothing to offer them beyond what they see.

God created man in His image, but it is the spirit, not body, that is referred to. Though the body is itself remarkable, it’s funny how differently northern European Renaissance painters depicted the greatness of man (and esp. of Christ) in their misery and suffering and piety. I always found that interesting to contrast the northern and southern Reanaissances. A German Christ is an emaciated, forlorn one, and an Italian one is a robust, mostly-nude, “Apollo” (as per Michelangelo’s Last Judgment, for one). It is a way of imposing man’s ideal upon God, as the measure of what is great, and that is why I called it humanism. But that is one of those things about Art - it is interpretive, and imitates life, and life imitates it. As long as you know how to interpret what you are seeing, have a context for it, you can mine it for a lot of value.

 

[Matt_Collins]

papa_k:

At risk of starting a tangent, I do not think this would be possible. Michelangelo did not, to my knowledge, use female models. His “women” are males with breasts, and softened features.

As an anatomist, much of his painted work, esp. minor figures, are more like amalgations of his range of experience dealing with varied (almost exclusively male) subjects. The faces are from his imagination, blended with what he actually knew about their anatomies. A person viewing this is as detached from sensuality as the artist was who did it.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why some of us are uncomfortable with allowing the same degree of artistic freedom when photographing nudes rather than painting them. The realism, as well as the actual individuality and personhood of the real person being photographed, can add an element that isn’t there in Michelangelo’s paintings.

On the other hand, there are paintings and drawings by others where real female and male models were used, which also are universally accepted as art and not as porn. I remember visiting an exhibit at the National Gallery in Washington, DC, of drawings by Andrew Wyeth, which contained a number of nudes that can only be described as exquisite art. They were of an actual model he used frequently for years. They were sensual, but not titillating, and were, in fact, quite beautiful. Only the most serious prude would have thought them inappropriate or pornographic.

I can imagine a very talented photographer creating many of the same scenes Andrew Wyeth did in that exhibit. And despite my comments above, I believe such photographs would be considered art.

Whether or not they would be appropriate in a Catholic Church, of course, is an entirely separate question.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Not to be overly critical, but from the few images I’ve seen, the calendar is about as erotic as a piece of toast, and about as artful as mediocre advertising. I think it fails as great art, and I think it fails as even moderately titilating pornography. It’s debatable which is the greater travesty.

For me, the calendar is not really saying anything particularly interesting and is playing with the nudity taboo not as an illustration of the themes/scenes/images depicted, but merely as a visual challenge to the viewer. For the most part, the images ask the question, “Does this make you uncomfortable?” It’s a relatively boring question. Many of the abject artists of the 80’s and 90’s who were incredibly controversial (I’m thinking of Serrano, here) were asking far more interesting questions regarding the relationship between the body and the sacred in far more interesting and far more shocking ways. But never was the question, “Does this make you uncomfortable?” The answer will inevitably be another question: “Who cares?”

Provocative art is not merely provocation. It is also art. Provocation can be artful–propaganda, for instance, can be very artful–but on its own, it will never be art.

For me, intention is key. Art is related to beauty and beauty to truth (as Keats is so good to remind us). The beautiful is an invitation to engage with the truth, an invitation to engage with the world–it is the universe seducing us into relationship. This relationship is a difficult one, and is not always pretty–often, the beautiful (as Rilke reminds us) is a prelude to the sublime, that threshold of terror in which we see the limitations of our own being, or come face to face with the Divine Other. Art can do this. For these reasons, art can be beautiful, it can be sublime, but it is only accidentally pretty. From what I can tell, this calendar is merely pretty–the images display some skill with composition. And that’s pretty to look at sometimes.

Regarding edification, I must respectfully disagree that the purpose of art is to edify. I think it is the purpose of art not to have a utilitarian function, but merely to be beautiful, or to ask a challenging question with which we must struggle. Isn’t that enough? There are other places where we can seek edification.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Matt_Collins]

Deo Volente:

For me, intention is key. Art is related to beauty and beauty to truth … The beautiful is an invitation to engage with the truth, an invitation to engage with the world–it is the universe seducing us into relationship. This relationship is a difficult one, and is not always pretty–often, the beautiful … is a prelude to the sublime, that threshold of terror in which we see the limitations of our own being, or come face to face with the Divine Other. Art can do this. For these reasons, art can be beautiful, it can be sublime, but it is only accidentally pretty.

…

Regarding edification, I must respectfully disagree that the purpose of art is to edify. I think it is the purpose of art not to have a utilitarian function, but merely to be beautiful, or to ask a challenging question with which we must struggle. Isn’t that enough? There are other places where we can seek edification.

edify tr. v. To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement.

I think this definition of “edify” is completely consistent with the purpose of art you propose. In fact, your definition is exactly what I had in mind when I chose the word “edify”, but I’m not nearly so eloquent as you! Thank you for that post!

 

[Brad]

Survey 100 teenage boys on whether they would rather have a playboy magazine or a statue of Venus in their room?

How far do we take this extension for the “sake of art”. Some think art can only be fully expressed in person with the nude humans right in front of you. Some would say they need to not be still but practicing a “performing art” while nude.

If we want to error in this arena, we need to error on the side of caution. The question to ask is not how far we can go without sinning. The question is whether you can look at a nude painting/drawing without being drawn into a near occasion of sin AND what is the purpose of analyzing this painting/drawing. Further, what is the purpose of the nude painting/drawing? It is part of a larger context for the rememberance of history? What will be the audience? Are they mature? Is it gratutitous? In essence, does it draw our thoughts towards God, the creator of all gifts and all art?

 

[ben_dy]

Matt Collins:

If they save one soul, but lead 10,000 others into mortal sin, it’s hard to see how it could be considered art. Again, without seeing the calendar, I suspect it’s the “work” of a misguided youth minister, at best, and an excuse for a pederast at worst.

While I said in a previous post that I don’t think the medium of photography necessarily makes nudity pornography, I think it is reasonable to believe that the realism normally associated with photography makes it somewhat more difficult for it not to be titillating. So even if it can be considered art, one should be very prudent in viewing (or creating) it. I would think it would take an exceptional artist to photographically portray the same scenes Michelangelo did in the Sistine Chapel.

I agree that it’s impossible to judge the calendar without seeing it - which is why I asked the question more generally here rather than in the NCR forum.

There’s a photographer - Francois Gillet - who I met at a gallery showing in London in 1983, I believe, and if ANYONE could pull off a “Michelangelo-on-film”, this guy could. The detail and the work that goes into just one image can take he and a crew months to pull together. At that time he was a rather pricey commercial photographer but his commercial work was not his best - his best was what was shown and sold in galleries. I’ve no idea if he’s still around or not and could only find two really poor children’s ‘portraits’ made into jigsaw puzzles in Japan as representative of his work - and they are shoddy! So, yes, I believe that someone could recreate a Michelangelo on film, with a great deal of technical skill.

And I - like yourself - certainly hope that if this little calendar actually sees the light of day that it is the work of the misguided and not born of sin!

As to photography… I suspect that there is something psychologically at work when one views a photograph as opposed to even the most realistic trompe l’oeil painting. Of the former you almost want to say “had I only been there, I could have pressed the button” and that, in itself, makes photography more ‘realistic’ - I (and I suspect others as well) feel that photography is something I’m able to do, even if what I produce has no artistic merit: I’ve worked with all consumer and professional format cameras and feel I can take a ‘good enough’ photo of anything while if you gave me a kit of brushes, paints, and a canvas and had me paint your portrait you’d end up a mess (on canvas!) as would I (and my clothes and the surrounding area).

I - and I expect most here - grew up with a camera as a part of the ‘family’, always there to record events. I have thousands of family photos - some old on glass and tin - and, you’re right, a photograph is much more ‘real’ than an artist’s portrait and it’'s easy to see how a photo might be considered more ‘titillating’ than any painting could be - the ‘person’ is generally quite ‘real’ in a photograph and while I love Hans Holbein’s portrait of St. Thomas More I’ve often wondered if that terrifically appearing realism is “really” the same St. Thomas as a photograph would reveal. So many color family photographs I have from the 1930’s through the 1960’s have been ‘painted’ so that Mom’s lips appear redder than I recall, my eyebrows more pronounced, etc. I’ve a preference for the ‘candid’ portrait photo - my wife’s face wind-chapped and ruddy after five hours of snowshoeing in Maine - than for her ‘wedding portrait’ photo, Photography does ‘capture the moment’ and, no matter how contrived, in a much more realistic way than most artists could ever accomplish.

So I see your point - and think it important to consider - how photography is able to bring us closer to what is ‘real’, and thus more ‘naturally’ titillating than almost any artwork could achieve. We are fortunate in being able to make this distinction - perhaps papa_k could fill us in on the perception of the naked and nearly naked paintings in churches at the time of the Renaissance? They had nothing to compare! No digital cameras and Photoshop! The Holbein’s of the day were certainly as close to a film portrait that you could likely procure at the time but was the Mona Lisa considered a realistic representation?

I need to read more of the messages - I’m glad papa_k found this question so early and is sharing his knowledge with us! And many of the comments are causing me to rethink some of my views on sacred art - reminds me of how enamoured I was (and still am, to a degree) with the Eastern icons and all manner of sacred art, really. And even some contemporary religious artwork strikes me as powerful sometimes - I don’t know how many people know of Michael O’Brien’s artwork - he mat best be known as a writer of Catholic fiction, but I believe his work is just stunning - take a look… studiobrien.com/site/index.php .

…continued…

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

As I said, I’m no expert on art, photography, or pornography - I know when the line is crossed, though, perhaps only by God’s grace!, in celebrating His creation in artwork that glorifies Him as opposed to that which is demeaning to the human person. In some sacred art in which there is nudity, one can determine - easily I think - whether the intention is to glorify God or to debase the human form and even the individual to become nothing more than an object of lust. Just now I’m leaning toward the proposition that there is a place for display of the human form in Christian art - be it in sculpture, painting, photography - but that both artist and audience must keep in mind that there is that which glorifies God and that which can have the effect of debasing God by making the body into an work of humanistic objectification and even further degrees of degradation which are surely sinful.

 

[ben_dy]

Brad:

In essence, does it draw our thoughts towards God, the creator of all gifts and all art?

That is very close to the question that I would ask of myself were I an artist and the question I do ask myself as an ‘observer’ (not quite the right word but ‘audience’ and ‘viewer’ don’t seem to work either!). Does this glorify God? And I can say ‘yes’ to that with some artwork considered sacred that depicts the nude human form and ‘definitely not’ to works that are base and degrading. Others might have different viewpoints than my own - I realize that - but I think that most Christians would, through God’s grace and not dependent on our imperfect knowledge or expertise, be able to discern such works.

 

[utica]

Photography has been with us for only a bit over one hundred and fifty years. It’s still a baby compared to painting and sculpture.

The development of digital techniques has clearly changed photography forevever. No longer must a photographer make a choice between making an image that you might call realistic, and making a more abstract one that might require going through a sometimes tortuous process.

Digital techniques and workflow now add a new set, and almost unlimited set, of possibilities for the photographer; does he want to make an image that is realistic, or does he want that image to evoke a specific feeling or emotion that might better be acheived by working the image over with various techniques.

It does come down to intention. As someone said earlier, is it to titillate or edify.

If the intention is to edify, there is no reason why, in the right hands, that an image cannot start out with the photographic process.

Photography keeps getting more and more painterly every day.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

edify tr. v. To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement.

I think this definition of “edify” is completely consistent with the purpose of art you propose. In fact, your definition is exactly what I had in mind when I chose the word “edify”, but I’m not nearly so eloquent as you! Thank you for that post!

Thanks for this, Matt. I’m sorry for maybe sounding a bit too peeved. I associate the word “edify” with a certain didactic impulse, and the notion that art should be didactic often gets my dander up. I see the didactic impulse as the result of a rationalistic cultural movement that couldn’t quite figure out why art was important, why beauty (its obervation, discovery, or creation) was essential to the human condition, why struggle was good in itself, or how beauty can be found in unexpected places (or places we would rather not look for any number of reasons). The best thing to do with something we cannot fully understand–assign it a box, make it serve a “useful” purpose, rob it of all power, and control it.

I work in the theater, and we are still struggling with an inheritance of realism that insists that we provide a didactic moral to our audiences which, in this day and age, amounts to an audience patting itself on the back and congratulating itself on how moral it really is. The play says, “It’s bad to marginalize people.” Great! How good it is that we would never do that! Arg. It’s an anaemic approach to creating art, I think.

To create a work of beauty is to create an invitation to dialogue or relationship that should be difficult–and this requires no justification other than the fact that it is human to create, to seek beauty, and to be in relationship. I think art should be hard because relationships are hard. This means being challenged or even confused. It actually involves a sort of suffering, a kind of pain. Perhaps a yearning or a longing. But it doesn’t mean being taught anything. As a writer, I am no greater moral authority than a member of my audience. Why should I arrogate such authority to myself? Chekhov wrote, and I paraphrase, “It is not my job to give answers. It is my job to ask the question correctly.” We live in a culture in which answers come fast and easy, but questions, good questions, are hard to come by.

I’m ranting again!

Thanks for your post!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Matt_Collins]

Deo Volente:

I associate the word “edify” with a certain didactic impulse, and the notion that art should be didactic often gets my dander up. I see the didactic impulse as the result of a rationalistic cultural movement that couldn’t quite figure out why art was important, why beauty (its obervation, discovery, or creation) was essential to the human condition, why struggle was good in itself, or how beauty can be found in unexpected places (or places we would rather not look for any number of reasons).
…
As a writer, I am no greater moral authority than a member of my audience. Why should I arrogate such authority to myself? Chekhov wrote, and I paraphrase, “It is not my job to give answers. It is my job to ask the question correctly.” We live in a culture in which answers come fast and easy, but questions, good questions, are hard to come by.

I agree completely, but again, I couldn’t say it as well as you. And I see why you objected to the word “edify”, which does, as the definition I quoted says, imply a certain “teaching”, as if the artist knew more than the audience. That is not what I meant, so perhaps I did choose an inadequate word. I meant something more akin to “encourage”, or “challenge”.

I especially like the distinction you make between “beautiful” and “pretty”. Again, my thoughts are not as well formed as yours, because I’m neither an artist nor a philosopher. I’m simply a computer programmer who’s trying to raise 3 kids to be able to think. But I think I understand what you mean by that distinction.

To me, a work of art that challenges us to confront even the most seedy realities of human existence, that makes us ask what those realities mean, can be quite beautiful, because it speaks of Truth. But it may not be “pretty” at all.

 

[utica]

This is my favorite definition of art, from JPII’s Jubilee Celebration For Artisits:

*At times the encounter between the splendour of artistic achievement and the heaviness of one’s heart can stir that salutary restlessness which makes one want to overcome mediocrity and to start a new life, generously open to the love of God and our brethren.

*That is preceeded by this:

*This dialogue with grace primarily involves the ethical level, but it touches all the dimensions of our lives and is particularly expressed in the exercise of artistic talent. God lets himself be glimpsed in your spirit through the fascination of beauty and your longing for it. Without doubt the artist has a special relationship to beauty, and it can be said that beauty is “the vocation bestowed on him by the Creator” (Letter to Artists, n. 3). If the artist can perceive a ray of the supreme beauty among the many manifestations of the beautiful, then art becomes a way to God **and spurs the artist to combine his creative talent with his commitment to a life of ever greater conformity to the divine law.

***I’ve come to believe that my responsibility as an artist is exactly the same as my responsibility in the rest of my life; to ***“commit to a life of ever greater conformity to the divine law”.

***There definitely is a danger of making bad art because of this view. I think, in time, we’ll overcome this. It’s just been so long since we saw art as serving this higher purpose that we’ve lost the language and tools of how to do it without becoming self-concious.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

ben_dy:

What makes Greco-inspired Renaissance nudity a thing of beauty and worthy of our churches while a photo of same might be considered pornographic?

Generally speaking, the Greeks were about finding the ideal by means of the physical. The exposition of the nude body was in fact a way of pointing to interior virtues.

Michaelangelo portrayed Adam as nude because Adam was innocent and according to Scripture was not clothed until after the Fall. The Renaissance artists drew on the Greek ideals, turning them from humanism to faith.

For centuries, sacred art was indeed used to instruct the illiterate majority in the Church (90%). But it also provided an ‘experience’ of God’s presence and it was both a mode of prayer and a call to prayer.

In later centuries, the need to instruct has been met increasingly by books and then the media. But sacred art still provides an ‘experience’ of God’s presence.

What turns a work of art into pornography?

1. It’s use, not it’s original intent.
2. It’s public definition and promotion as pornography.