Nudity vs "Indecency"

  • Thread starter Thread starter iceflame1019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

iceflame1019

Guest
Hello,

I just had an argument with my Baptist friend after he found that I have been doing nude studies for my art. He claims that any and all nudity is to be viewed as pornography, because nudity is to be shared between yourself and your spouse only and that Satan can sneak into the mind bit by bit if one is exposed to the nude body in art. When I asked him if I’m committing the sin of pornography by drawing naked bodies for figure study in college or for betterment of my personal art, he said I should only study it if I’m going into a medical field, otherwise leave it.
I don’t do pornography, to me that would be cheating on my future spouse by looking for a sexual outlet before her. I only draw the body, no seductive posing, usually just standing poses.

He logged off before I could try to show him pieces of art throughout history…what would be the best way to approach this frame of mind? I’m afraid I get a little too vehement when I’m questioned >_<
Are there any exemplary pieces to note, and how exactly should I define nudity vs pornographic intent in art to him? I took a look on the web and on Catholic.com’s database but couldn’t find/access anything truly relevant (internet is still really choppy…)

(if this is in the wrong area, I apologize, I’m not able to load most of the other threads for some reason. the server keeps timing out.)
 
iceflame1019 said:
Hello,

I just had an argument with my Baptist friend after he found that I have been doing nude studies for my art. He claims that any and all nudity is to be viewed as pornography, because nudity is to be shared between yourself and your spouse only and that Satan can sneak into the mind bit by bit if one is exposed to the nude body in art. When I asked him if I’m committing the sin of pornography by drawing naked bodies for figure study in college or for betterment of my personal art, he said I should only study it if I’m going into a medical field, otherwise leave it.
I don’t do pornography, to me that would be cheating on my future spouse by looking for a sexual outlet before her. I only draw the body, no seductive posing, usually just standing poses.

He logged off before I could try to show him pieces of art throughout history…what would be the best way to approach this frame of mind? I’m afraid I get a little too vehement when I’m questioned >_<
Are there any exemplary pieces to note, and how exactly should I define nudity vs pornographic intent in art to him? I took a look on the web and on Catholic.com’s database but couldn’t find/access anything truly relevant (internet is still really choppy…)

(if this is in the wrong area, I apologize, I’m not able to load most of the other threads for some reason. the server keeps timing out.)
Click to expand...
IMO, what is art to some may be another’s pornography. Your intent, I’m sure, is simply art. However, each person who sees your work may view it in another light (some will see the “art” and some will see the “pornography”). I’m not judging you so please don’t think that; however, I am saying that I wouldn’t be taking these classes myself, because of how others may perceive my work. That kinda sounds like a cop-out and I’m sure that some may say, “well that is their problem” but I’m of the opinion, that when it comes to me and what I do, that I should try to avoid doing things that may be viewed as questionable. For example, a young lady may choose to wear immodest clothing. Some will see her and not even notice while others may see her as an object of lust. IMO, the young lady plays a role in this and in order to avoid being seen by some in this light, she should dress modestly. So, again, IMO, I tend to lean closer toward your friend’s position. Respectfully of course.
 
iceflame1019 said:
Hello,

I just had an argument with my Baptist friend after he found that I have been doing nude studies for my art. He claims that any and all nudity is to be viewed as pornography, because nudity is to be shared between yourself and your spouse only and that Satan can sneak into the mind bit by bit if one is exposed to the nude body in art. When I asked him if I’m committing the sin of pornography by drawing naked bodies for figure study in college or for betterment of my personal art, he said I should only study it if I’m going into a medical field, otherwise leave it.
I don’t do pornography, to me that would be cheating on my future spouse by looking for a sexual outlet before her. I only draw the body, no seductive posing, usually just standing poses.

He logged off before I could try to show him pieces of art throughout history…what would be the best way to approach this frame of mind? I’m afraid I get a little too vehement when I’m questioned >_<
Are there any exemplary pieces to note, and how exactly should I define nudity vs pornographic intent in art to him? I took a look on the web and on Catholic.com’s database but couldn’t find/access anything truly relevant (internet is still really choppy…)

(if this is in the wrong area, I apologize, I’m not able to load most of the other threads for some reason. the server keeps timing out.)
Click to expand...
Consider 1 Cor 8:9 Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

He has been taught what he’s been taught and you aren’t going to change that. (I would hate to see his reaction to the Sistene Chapel or most other works of Renaissance art)

Bottom line is that I think you will find that his attitude is a natural outgrowth of what his religious group has taught him. Unless you utterly wish to change what he believes, it is doubtful that you will be able to change his beliefs in this one area.
 
Oh, and if I need to say it, no you are not generating pornography if all you are doing are figure studies.
 
flip a coin and that is how many answers you may get.

God knows your heart and mind. To learn art one needs to be able to construct human bodies. I wouldn’t have a problem with it as long as you are doing what is necessary to advance your skills with a decent heart.

The human body is a work of art made in the image and likeness of God after all.

Take care.
 
Nudity is not in itself indecent, i.e. porn. The human body is beautiful and indeed sex is beautiful. It is only in the mis-use the body and sex that they become pornographic.

There are many nudes in art, but you asked for exemplary pieces. How about Michaelangelo’s David. This is simply a nude of a man, nothing more. It shows the beauty of the human body, which, you might remind your friend, was created by God. And God said it was “very good”.
 
I never understood the concept of a nude model in front of a class of young adults so they could draw thier body parts as they contimplate them.

Why not go outside and draw a tree?
 
iceflame1019 said:
Hello,

I just had an argument with my Baptist friend after he found that I have been doing nude studies for my art. He claims that any and all nudity is to be viewed as pornography, because nudity is to be shared between yourself and your spouse only and that Satan can sneak into the mind bit by bit if one is exposed to the nude body in art. When I asked him if I’m committing the sin of pornography by drawing naked bodies for figure study in college or for betterment of my personal art, he said I should only study it if I’m going into a medical field, otherwise leave it.
I don’t do pornography, to me that would be cheating on my future spouse by looking for a sexual outlet before her. I only draw the body, no seductive posing, usually just standing poses.

He logged off before I could try to show him pieces of art throughout history…what would be the best way to approach this frame of mind? I’m afraid I get a little too vehement when I’m questioned >_<
Are there any exemplary pieces to note, and how exactly should I define nudity vs pornographic intent in art to him? I took a look on the web and on Catholic.com’s database but couldn’t find/access anything truly relevant (internet is still really choppy…)

(if this is in the wrong area, I apologize, I’m not able to load most of the other threads for some reason. the server keeps timing out.)
Click to expand...
Why is this OK for a doctor and not an artist? Your friend is his own authority.
 
Mijoy2 said:
I never understood the concept of a nude model in front of a class of young adults so they could draw thier body parts as they contimplate them.

Why not go outside and draw a tree?
Click to expand...
They do that too. An artist needs to be able to represent what he sees, and this includes the human body. If you want to see what happens to art when the artist doesn’t know firsthand what the body looks like, look at drawings of humans from the Middle Ages and other eras when artists couldn’t use live models or even study cadavers to learn anatomy. The body becomes an amorphous blob under clothing.

If you want to see what happens when male artists are not allowed to work from female figures, look at the hands on some of our paintings of the Madonna. The poor Blessed Virgin has huge man-hands in lots of our older art.

Exhibit A: Look at the strangely elongated forearm and fingers of the figure in red. This art was created long after the incredibly realistic images of the human body done by the Greeks and Romans. Why is this representation so much more anatomically naive? The artist didn’t have access to a live model.

http://arthistory.uchicago.edu/graduate/mem/images/chronicles.jpg
 
I guess your Baptist friend would find the Sistine Chapel “pornographic”.
 
cecilia97 said:
They do that too. An artist needs to be able to represent what he sees, and this includes the human body. If you want to see what happens to art when the artist doesn’t know firsthand what the body looks like, look at drawings of humans from the Middle Ages and other eras when artists couldn’t use live models or even study cadavers to learn anatomy. The body becomes an amorphous blob under clothing.

If you want to see what happens when male artists are not allowed to work from female figures, look at the hands on some of our paintings of the Madonna. The poor Blessed Virgin has huge man-hands in lots of our older art.

Exhibit A: Look at the strangely elongated forearm and fingers of the figure in red. This art was created long after the incredibly realistic images of the human body done by the Greeks and Romans. Why is this representation so much more anatomically naive? The artist didn’t have access to a live model.

http://arthistory.uchicago.edu/graduate/mem/images/chronicles.jpg
Click to expand...
If people were clothed in long robes I could understand this. But this isn’t the case. In other words, I fail to see how drawing an individuals genitals makes them a more highly trained artist. Unless their art was to draw genitals. Of course there is a high demand for this, but it is called pornography.

I admit ignorance here. I guess I just do not see the point. I do know that whenever a class like this was offered EVERYBODY wanted in. But basketweaving got few takers.

This tells me something.
 
Internet opinion culture has no value in answering questions.

I took life drawing in college. I saw plenty of nudes. I also worked in a hospital and there was some nudity there.

God knows our intentions. He knows the difference between necessity and indecent action. I wasn’t leering at the models as I drew them. It was important to see how bone and muscle actually worked on the body instead of learning anatomy only from a book. At the hospital, it was at times necessary to see nudity during treatment and tests.

Hope this helps,
Ed
 
Mijoy2 said:
If people were clothed in long robes I could understand this. But this isn’t the case. In other words, I fail to see how drawing an individuals genitals makes them a more highly trained artist. Unless their art was to draw genitals. Of course there is a high demand for this, but it is called pornography.

I admit ignorance here. I guess I just do not see the point. I do know that whenever a class like this was offered EVERYBODY wanted in. But basketweaving got few takers.

This tells me something.
Click to expand...
  1. the people who were excited to take the class just because of the nudity were not serious about art
  2. you are assuming that life drawing focuses on genitalia…that seems to me rather like a Victorian obsession with sex that might be projected onto others? Life drawing is about the whole body. And no, you can’t draw the muscles of the body correctly without being about to see how they connect to the buttocks and trunk if those are covered by a drape or clothing. The human body is one piece.
Again, I have to ask: why is it OK for a doctor to see live nudity and not an artist? Is it:
  • because it’s necessary for her work? (I believe I’ve shown it’s just as necessary for artists’ work)
  • because a doctor saves lives? (Not all types of doctors do, and they still see nude bodies in school)
  • because a doctor improves our quality of life? (so does art)
 
My Baptist friend and I had a sort of similar conversation once. I told him that one of my roommates was studying for an art internship at the Vatican and he said that the first thing he thought of was naked statues. Then he talked about how one time he was in Texas and he kept seeing statues of naked women and how he would “avert his eyes” from it. So of course I questioned him about this, saying that it’s not necessary for him to avert his eyes from those statues because the body is beautiful, but then he said that he knew that but still had personal convictions that he shouldn’t really look at them. I dropped the convo from there because I didn’t want to make him uncomfortable (we’re Internet friends so it would be a bit weird for him to share super-personal details about himself, also we’re different genders so that would also be weird, lol).

I read somewhere, actually, that Protestants tend to cringe more at swear words that have to do with bodily functions, whereas Catholics cringe more at swear words that are supposed to be sacred or have some other spiritual meaning. I don’t know how true that is, but I can see it holding water among certain people.

Protestants, I think, are more scrupulous about how they view the body. Protestants are more likely to view the body as something bad, as something hindering us from our relationship with Christ, whereas Catholics are more likely to view the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit, and as something that will be given back to us after Jesus’ second coming. It is not our goal to separate ourselves with the body, but rather worship God with it.
 
Sarah_Angel said:
My Baptist friend and I had a sort of similar conversation once. I told him that one of my roommates was studying for an art internship at the Vatican and he said that the first thing he thought of was naked statues. Then he talked about how one time he was in Texas and he kept seeing statues of naked women and how he would “avert his eyes” from it. So of course I questioned him about this, saying that it’s not necessary for him to avert his eyes from those statues because the body is beautiful, but then he said that he knew that but still had personal convictions that he shouldn’t really look at them. I dropped the convo from there because I didn’t want to make him uncomfortable (we’re Internet friends so it would be a bit weird for him to share super-personal details about himself, also we’re different genders so that would also be weird, lol).

I read somewhere, actually, that Protestants tend to cringe more at swear words that have to do with bodily functions, whereas Catholics cringe more at swear words that are supposed to be sacred or have some other spiritual meaning. I don’t know how true that is, but I can see it holding water among certain people.

Protestants, I think, are more scrupulous about how they view the body. Protestants are more likely to view the body as something bad, as something hindering us from our relationship with Christ, whereas Catholics are more likely to view the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit, and as something that will be given back to us after Jesus’ second coming. It is not our goal to separate ourselves with the body, but rather worship God with it.
Click to expand...
Telling. When you put so much importance on not looking at/thinking about something, it has a way of taking over. It becomes something you have to focus on, in order to keep vigilant and not think about it.

Reminds me of advice I got from my spiritual director when I was being assaulted by evil thoughts. I expected him to tell me to do something or take some action, look out for these thoughts, etc. Nope. He said “that’s just the enemy, ignore it”. The thoughts lessened considerably after that.
 
Mijoy2 said:
If people were clothed in long robes I could understand this. But this isn’t the case. In other words, I fail to see how drawing an individuals genitals makes them a more highly trained artist. Unless their art was to draw genitals. Of course there is a high demand for this, but it is called pornography.

I admit ignorance here. I guess I just do not see the point. I do know that whenever a class like this was offered EVERYBODY wanted in. But basketweaving got few takers.

This tells me something.
Click to expand...
Google Frank Netter, M.D.

He was a physician and also a highly accomplished artist who put his talents to use as a medical illustrator. Obviously he did detailed artwork including of male and female genitalia.

It certainly isn’t “pornography”.
 
cecilia97 said:
They do that too. An artist needs to be able to represent what he sees, and this includes the human body. If you want to see what happens to art when the artist doesn’t know firsthand what the body looks like, look at drawings of humans from the Middle Ages and other eras when artists couldn’t use live models or even study cadavers to learn anatomy. The body becomes an amorphous blob under clothing.

If you want to see what happens when male artists are not allowed to work from female figures, look at the hands on some of our paintings of the Madonna. The poor Blessed Virgin has huge man-hands in lots of our older art.

Exhibit A: Look at the strangely elongated forearm and fingers of the figure in red. This art was created long after the incredibly realistic images of the human body done by the Greeks and Romans. Why is this representation so much more anatomically naive? The artist didn’t have access to a live model.

http://arthistory.uchicago.edu/graduate/mem/images/chronicles.jpg
Click to expand...
Or… maybe the artist just wasn’t very good. 😃
 
Big_Dummy said:
if you can do it without lust, I don’t see the problem.
Click to expand...
I struggled with this very question when I was studying the “Theology of the Body” - where does one draw the line? If I can view images of the naked human body without lust, should I? There are numerous websites dedicated to “non-pornographic” nude photography of women - should I feel free to visit those sites if I can do so without lust?

The question is not then about lust, but prudential judgement and decision making - should I be viewing the photographs of women who have posed nude and allowed these photographs to be posted online for the entire world to see? Is her act of doing this sinful and would I be encouraging sin?

She cannot be sure that all the men who would see these photos would not be committing lust and acts of indecency because of her nudity, and she would thereby be an occasion of sin for them -

I feel that if I were to seek out those images, I would be participating in sin, even if I myself do not lust, because the women who do this are sinning -

Non-photographic nude images are an artistic expression, not reality, and do not seem to violate the dignity of the person as a nude photograph of a real person exposed for the world in general to see does -

The human body is the most beautiful created thing in the world because we are made in the image and likeness of God, and God is beautiful - people crave the naked human body because they crave God, whether they recognize it or not - it would be great if we could all revel in pure and innocent joy in each other’s unveiled image and likeness of God, but in this fallen world, lust pollutes everything so we must take care not to expose the image and likeness of God to lust and desecration - we must protect the holy temple that we are, and respect and protect the dignity of others as well

One other thought that is helpful to me in all this, is thinking about my daughter - what would I have her do? Would I have her wear an outfit that exposes her body in a provocative manner? Would I advise her that it is ok to pose nude for a “non-pornographic” website? Would I tell her I thought it was great if she disrobed in front of art students who wanted to practice drawing her naked body? Questions like this give me an even more grounded perspective.

—todd
catholicsojourner.blogspot.com
 
Well, I suppose the general consensus is that it is not sinful to create nudes when it’s “art.” Great examples were given such as the Sistine Chapel, David, etc. and rightly called art. I offered my personal take on the subject and said that I would not do it, and I continue to hold that view (for me personally). NOT because I find the human body evil, or sinful and not because I fear that I would be sinning per se, but because not everyone who views the finished product may see it as art and I wouldn’t want to play a part in another’s choice to sin. Perhaps I didn’t word my response correctly. I assure you that I am not a part of the “internet opinion culture” nor a prude. I do however, hold to the concept that displaying anything that may lead another toward sin should be avoided. In a perfect world it would be different; however, we do not live in a perfect world and while some may gaze upon a nude painting, photo, drawing, or sculpture and see the art, others (especially today) will see something else and THAT is where the evil comes in. Perhaps it is overly scrupulous of me, but hey… what can I say? I was raised conservative and while I can appreciate art, I recognize that modesty within art overrides the desire to expose every square inch of the human body. To all the artists out there… I believe that there is a fine line between what you may intend to communicate to the observer and what the observer sees in your work. You may indeed want to celebrate the body as a beautiful creation of God, but remember that not everyone who views your work will appreciate or understand that sentiment. Instead, there are those who will see it in it’s basest form. Take care and God bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top