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

[Ani_Ibi]

utica:

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.

What evidence do you have for this view?

What tools are necessary? As for losing the language and the tools: who is ‘we’?

 

[Rebecca_New]

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.

Maybe just what you stated is why it is important. A mature person would not be stirred in a carnal way, but if one was, it would show a lack of maturity and an area that needs to be worked on. It took a lot of prayer and study for me to reach this stage, but the tasteful display is not obnoxious -its artful.

 

[utica]

Ani Ibi:

What evidence do you have for this view?

What tools are necessary? As for losing the language and the tools: who is ‘we’?

The ‘we’ I was referring to was the ‘we’ of the collective culture. Perhaps I overstated my thought. There are certainly artist working who have been able to break through the dominant culture. Perhaps the opening of Narnia last night is an indication of better things to come.

The tools are the methods and languages in various media that an artist may use to speak about transcendence, and perhaps create, as you put it, and ‘experience’ of God. Lewis had the tools. Myself? I’m searching. As someone pointed out, the problem of turning sacred art into merely didactic art is certainly there.

As evidence of the problem I would offer the new cathedral in Los Angeles. To be fair, I haven’t visited it. But from photos it seems to represent many of the things that I found deadening in the art world when I lost my enchantment with it back in the '80s.

Of course, I don’t think that every new cathedral ought to look like Chartres. But personally, I haven’t been in any relatively new church that evokes a feeling of transcendence or gave me that ‘experience’ of God.

It seems that it may be because the language for acheiving that result is lagging behind the reality of the times that we live in.

 

[Angainor]

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’m not usually one to rush to Ashcroft’s defense, but I think it should be pointed out that the statue never would have been covered up if it weren’t for childish photojournalists who lie on the floor just to get an angle with Ashcroft and the statue in the same picture.

 

[childofmary1143]

If you go to TOBIA’s website theologyofthebody.net/ they show a sculpture of Auguste Rodin’s “The Kiss”

http://www.fantasyarts.net/Auguste_Rodin/August_Rodin_The_Kiss.jpg

Now I would like to ask all of you if you consider this to be taseful art or pornography. As you can see it shows a man and woman in a passionate kiss while nude. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines pornography as follows: 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.

Surely that sculpture constitutes a simulated sexual act.

 

[childofmary1143]

If you go to TOBIA’s website theologyofthebody.net/ they show a sculpture of Auguste Rodin’s “The Kiss”

Now I would like to ask all of you if you consider this to be taseful art or pornography. As you can see it shows a man and woman in a passionate kiss while nude. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines pornography as follows: 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.

Surely that sculpture constitutes a simulated sexual act.

I guess I should change my id name to thread ender as nobody has got anything to say about this

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If you go to TOBIA’s website theologyofthebody.net/ they show a sculpture of Auguste Rodin’s “The Kiss”

http://www.fantasyarts.net/Auguste_Rodin/August_Rodin_The_Kiss.jpg

Now I would like to ask all of you if you consider this to be taseful art or pornography. As you can see it shows a man and woman in a passionate kiss while nude. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines pornography as follows: 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties.

Surely that sculpture constitutes a simulated sexual act.

It is certainly meant to do so, because it illustrates a moment described in the Inferno, Canto 5: the kiss between Paolo & Francesca da Rimini which damned them, as Francesca was married to the brother of Paolo: the two of them were murdered while committing adultery. (That at least is the tale as told by Dante.) FWIW, “The Thinker” is part of an unfinished group which was to have shown Dante in thought at the gates of Hell - though why Rodin thought the poet was naked on that occasion, is anyone’s guess The French have never been any good with works of literature not produced by their own countrymen. (Voltaire had the gall to refer to Shakespeare as a “drunken savage”, & he was no politer about Dante )​

I wish someone would destroy both sculptures. And the “David” of Michelangelo: are we really meant to believe that David went out against Goliath stark naked ? These aren’t art, but excuses for immodesty. ##

 

[freddyboy]

I’m really having trouble with all this. At church we are told that we must be careful, to have custody of the eyes because we are besieged by the devil everywhere we turn (Los Angeles) billboards, internet, magazines, television just to name a handful of mediums.

There seems to be a lot of confusion here (personally speaking), with God there is never confusion. I understand this. I’m taught that confusion is the work of the devil.

I have been a photographer for over 25yrs and have done some work as a younger man that I would never show some people. However, in the last 5 yrs I have become ever more devoted to God than I have ever been in my life (49) so I’m always seeking to do what’s right. The photographs I have done in the past you would see in Maxim Magazine (lingerie glamor photography) or B&W semi nudes which I consider beautiful and yes probably tantalizing to some for sure.

However, In the last 5 years I have redirected my photographic talent to High Fashion Photography where myself and the artist involved combine the work of a beautiful professional model, talented, makeup artist, hairstylist, fashion designer, and fashion stylist all who work with me to create a beautiful image usually for an ad.

I’m working with hard working artists who take pride in their work (no nudity). I often tell people “Beauty is my Art” my interpretation, my art.

Because my photographic art is glamorous am I sinning? Am I confused because the devil? so my work is demonic? Do I need to change my career direction no matter how skilled or passionate I am about my love for my art? How do I encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement?

Art is so subjective that no matter what I do there will always be people who will see my photography and say “It’s Beautilful God would not have a problem with this” or would say “this work is pornographic” simply because it may show the curves of a women (no nudity). Is my career “a near occasion of sin” that ultimately leads me to Mortal sin & damnation?

 

[edwest2]

God knows our intentions. He knows our hearts. When I took Life Drawing in college, it was understood that the model was nude so we could improve our artistic skills. She was not to be viewed as a sex object but as a complete person cooperating in developing our skills. That was the line. She was to be regarded with dignity.

As porn magazines progressed from the 1940s to the 1950s to the 1960s to today, it went from a little to a little more to very explicit. What was meant to be private was made public. The producers of pornography knew that photos that looked like “the girl next door” would, as time passed, end up being replaced with the prostitute. Some people are trying to sell 1950s era photos of models as “art not porn.”

This isn’t about opinion but intention. As another poster wrote, would a teeenage boy want a certified, artistic Greco-Roman nude statue in his room or 100 issues of Playboy? It’s time to avoid the vagueness. Look at movies or TV. What used to be depictions of love and romance have turned into casual “just sex” and women walking around in purposely provocative clothing.

Opinions are not the answer. The producers of porn knew it would lead to addiction.

Peace,
Ed