Nudity vs "Indecency"

[cecilia97]

Or… maybe the artist just wasn’t very good.

…because he didn’t know anatomy.

 

[cecilia97]

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.

I feel especially blessed that my very Catholic mother, who is an artist, taught me about appreciating and viewing art from a very young age. I remember seeing David with her at about age 9. She used the opportunity to give me a simultaneous art and biology lesson.

IMHO, legitimate art is a celebration of God’s creation. Pornography twists our appreciation for the created world and body into a selfish, materialistic fascination with bodies and not people.

I’m done preaching now.

Madonna Nursing the Christ Child:
brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/37758/Madonna_Nursing_the_Christ_Child

 

[Tietjen]

I feel especially blessed that my very Catholic mother, who is an artist, taught me about appreciating and viewing art from a very young age. I remember seeing David with her at about age 9. She used the opportunity to give me a simultaneous art and biology lesson.

IMHO, legitimate art is a celebration of God’s creation. Pornography twists our appreciation for the created world and body into a selfish, materialistic fascination with bodies and not people.

I’m done preaching now.

Madonna Nursing the Christ Child:
brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/37758/Madonna_Nursing_the_Christ_Child

You are of course right. BUT, and this is my entire point, NOT everyone sees the same thing that you do. Do you believe the photos appearing in Playboy are art? I know some who say that they are. Of course, many do not. Since every individual can and does define what is and isn’t art, my point is made that while an artist may be creating a work of art for you, that same piece may, at the same time, be someone else’s vice.

 

[cecilia97]

You are of course right. BUT, and this is my entire point, NOT everyone sees the same thing that you do. Do you believe the photos appearing in Playboy are art? I know some who say that they are. Of course, many do not. Since every individual can and does define what is and isn’t art, my point is made that while an artist may be creating a work of art for you, that same piece may, at the same time, be someone else’s vice.

Absolutely. But nude models are a part of art training (rightly so), and will always continue to be. It’s not the nudity that makes something pornographic…it’s something less definable like intent, etc.

 

[edwest2]

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

What is the purpose of photographing nude people? Clothing is meant to cover that which should be covered. Just like you would not go to your neighbor’s house to look in a window, and perhaps see someone nude, the same is true on the internet.

Non-photographic images can be just as bad. If an artist draws images of women participtating in sex acts, for example, that’s a problem.

In a media culture that emphasizes sex, especially fornication, it dismisses modesty entirely. I’ve seen magazine cover photos that would have qualified as immodest at one time. The media has gradually conditioned people of all ages to simply accept having large portions of a woman’s body exposed, damaging her dignity and causing scandal to all who look on her. What if a girl decides she will go into this line of work? Exposing herself for money?

There was a time when ‘glamorous’ women existed and were photographed, but it was culturally understood that there were limits. Human dignity demands a wall of modesty to protect the integrity of a person who happens to be beautiful. This modesty recognized her beauty and did not degrade her to simply being an object. Beautiful women are complete individuals, including their thoughts and feelings. They have a mind and a spirit, not just a body.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You are of course right. BUT, and this is my entire point, NOT everyone sees the same thing that you do. Do you believe the photos appearing in Playboy are art? I know some who say that they are. Of course, many do not. Since every individual can and does define what is and isn’t art, my point is made that while an artist may be creating a work of art for you, that same piece may, at the same time, be someone else’s vice.

This is relativism. A decision must be made, at least in the Catholic community, regarding standards. In the 1960s, a man threw out a stack of Playboy magazines. A group of moms got together to dispose of them before young boys could get them. They did the right thing.

If you want to encourage other Catholics to do the right thing – don’t be vague - ever. It is completely unimportant that others think the photos in Playboy are art. It’s meaningless. Hugh Hefner wanted his “have sex whenever you want” Playboy Philosophy to infect our thinking. He designed Playboy to be a classy looking magazine with a refined layout and intellectual articles and interviews with important/controversial figures. After 1970, the legalization of graphic pornography and the opening of Adult Bookstores everywhere removed the art mask. It was all about 100% sex. Who needs articles?

God bless,
Ed

 

[cecilia97]

This is relativism. A decision must be made, at least in the Catholic community, regarding standards. In the 1960s, a man threw out a stack of Playboy magazines. A group of moms got together to dispose of them before young boys could get them. They did the right thing.

If you want to encourage other Catholics to do the right thing – don’t be vague - ever. It is completely unimportant that others think the photos in Playboy are art. It’s meaningless. Hugh Hefner wanted his “have sex whenever you want” Playboy Philosophy to infect our thinking. He designed Playboy to be a classy looking magazine with a refined layout and intellectual articles and interviews with important/controversial figures. After 1970, the legalization of graphic pornography and the opening of Adult Bookstores everywhere removed the art mask. It was all about 100% sex. Who needs articles?

God bless,
Ed

I don’t think the previous poster meant in any way to imply that Playboy is art to anyone.

Here’s the CCC on art:

2501

“Created ‘in the image of God’, man also expresses the truth of his relationship with God the Creator by the beauty of his artistic works. Indeed, art is a distinctively human form of expression; beyond the search for the necessities of life which is common to all living creatures, art is a freely given superabundance of the human being’s inner riches. Arising from talent given by the Creator and from man’s own effort, art is a form of practical wisdom, uniting knowledge and skill, to give form to the truth of reality in a language accessible to sight or hearing. To the extent that it is inspired by truth and love of beings, art bears a certain likeness to God’s activity in what he has created. Like any other human activity, art is not an absolute end in itself, but is ordered to and ennobled by the ultimate end of man.”

Of course, as Catholics, we understand “love” here to mean a real, serious love of God’s creation…not a false, lustful, so-called “love”.

 

[BobObob]

What is the purpose of photographing nude people? Clothing is meant to cover that which should be covered. Just like you would not go to your neighbor’s house to look in a window, and perhaps see someone nude, the same is true on the internet.

Non-photographic images can be just as bad. If an artist draws images of women participtating in sex acts, for example, that’s a problem.

In a media culture that emphasizes sex, especially fornication, it dismisses modesty entirely.

One good reason for photographing nude people is divorcing nudity from sexuality.

It seems to me that cultures in which casual exposure of nudity is most taboo are cultures which have the greatest problems with porn. The US, which is a lot more “puritanical” regarding nudity than many parts of Europe, tends to consume a lot more porn than those parts of Europe (where nudity may be displayed on public billboards). The US is in fact the greatest producer and consumer of porn. It’s also not surprising that the middle east (specifically Pakistan), which is even more “puritanical” than the US regarding nudity, has the highest per capita consumption rates for internet porn according to google trends.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/the_more_you_repress_it_the_mo.php
google.com/insights/search/#q=donkey%20sex%2Ccamel%20sex%2Crape%20pictures&cmpt=q

Also, the US state with the US state with the highest per capita consumption of internet porn is Utah (which is probably more “puritanical” than most US states).

Photographing nude people in non-pornographic ways may undo this. Nudity does not equal pornography. It takes wisdom, and more importantly, experience, to discern the difference between non-pornographic nude art and pornography.

BTW, the virtue of modesty entails being appropriately dressed. Which dress is appropriate in which situation takes wisdom, and more importantly, experience, to discern. There’s obviously a huge difference between changing in a locker room, swimming at a beach, having lunch with friends, and going to a wedding. It would be inappropriate for a person wearing clothes appropriate for a wedding in a locker room, while at the same time being inappropriate, disrespectful, and sinful for a person to wear a swimsuit at a wedding.

The difference between nude art (such as in the Vatican) and pornography is primarily intent.

 

[mtoddm]

One good reason for photographing nude people is divorcing nudity from sexuality. …

Photographing nude people in non-pornographic ways may undo this. Nudity does not equal pornography. It takes wisdom, and more importantly, experience, to discern the difference between non-pornographic nude art and pornography. …

The difference between nude art (such as in the Vatican) and pornography is primarily intent.

I agree with this somewhat, as American’s do equate nudity too much with sexually illicit behavior - we are prudes generally and so when our natures rebel against prudish constraints we take things to excess in the other direction - same thing with alcohol consumption

If we are talking about intent, there is a world of difference between the Playboy and Penthouse magazine’s intent, and the intents of these “non-pornographic” sites which proclaim that their intent is to enjoy the beauty of the nude female body as a work of art, which it is - they do not accept photographs of provocative or seductive poses - the photographs are really quite innocent looking, even though they are completely naked - viewed rightly they do not incline the viewer to sin, unlike pornography which pulls and pulls the person towards lust, which, although not inevitable, does take a considerable amount of will power and grace to not give in due to their provocative nature - however, nudity in itself is not provocative, it is the way it is portrayed

However, my general rule is that a person who allows themselves to be photographed unclothed with the understanding that these photographs are going to be for general consumption “out there”, and she would likely be an object of lust, and may cause weak people to fall into lust, then it would be a sin for her to do so - and then it would be a sin by association for me to seek out those photographs, even if my intent is not lust - for me to choose to look at women who have chosen to display themselves nude publicly would be sinful

—toddcatholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[inocente]

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.

Drawing a naked person is one of the hardest skills to master. The most difficult to draw is a good looking man or woman because every line has to be exactly right or you lose the likeness (no people, not because you can’t concentrate ). There’s absolutely no substitute for figure studies if you’re serious about your art.

Creation of Adam, Angel
Truth and Remorse, Botticelli
Vitruvian Man, da Vinci
Adam and Eve, Durer
The Opening of the Fifth Seal of the Apocalypse, El Greco
Dance II, Matisse
Nude with a Mirror, Miró
La Vie, Picasso
The Sacred and the Profane Love, Titian

If your friend sees porn in any of them, I’d look for something other than a Biblical explanation, if you catch my drift.

 

[Big_Dummy]

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

Clearly, I am assuming there is a purpose in the viewing. Art, Science, Medicine. gesh

 

[cecilia97]

Drawing a naked person is one of the hardest skills to master. The most difficult to draw is a good looking man or woman because every line has to be exactly right or you lose the likeness (no people, not because you can’t concentrate ). There’s absolutely no substitute for figure studies if you’re serious about your art.

Creation of Adam, Angel
Truth and Remorse, Botticelli
Vitruvian Man, da Vinci
Adam and Eve, Durer
The Opening of the Fifth Seal of the Apocalypse, El Greco
Dance II, Matisse
Nude with a Mirror, Miró
La Vie, Picasso
The Sacred and the Profane Love, Titian

If your friend sees porn in any of them, I’d look for something other than a Biblical explanation, if you catch my drift.

:clapping:

 

[havana1]

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.

Wait a sec…so much controversy, and the OP is a guy? If OP were a woman, would it have been less of a big deal?

 

[mtoddm]

We should also recall that God created us in our innocence naked, and as such were supposed to view each other so, as the unveiled expression of the total person - it was only when sin entered in did the unveiled beauty of our personhood (the image of God Himself) become of source of destructive and selfish desire (lust)

Those who through grace are able to glimpse this innocence of nudity should not abuse it to cause others to stumble, but at the same time one should not be judged because one is able to behold beauty without lust

I recall the story of two monks walking through Rome - a scantily clad prostitute was walking by them - one monk covered his eyes with his hand to avoid looking at her and lusting, but when he looked at his fellow monk he saw that he was looking directly at the woman with wide open eyes - “Cover your eyes, brother!”, the one monk said, “what are you doing?” The other monk remarked that he was contemplating the beauty of God as revealed through this woman - the prostitute was converted to the faith on the spot when she saw the eyes of the monk who looked on her with sincere and pure love -

—todd

catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

“If God had wanted us to be naked, He would have created us that way.” - Oscar Wilde

 

[edwest2]

One good reason for photographing nude people is divorcing nudity from sexuality.

It seems to me that cultures in which casual exposure of nudity is most taboo are cultures which have the greatest problems with porn. The US, which is a lot more “puritanical” regarding nudity than many parts of Europe, tends to consume a lot more porn than those parts of Europe (where nudity may be displayed on public billboards). The US is in fact the greatest producer and consumer of porn. It’s also not surprising that the middle east (specifically Pakistan), which is even more “puritanical” than the US regarding nudity, has the highest per capita consumption rates for internet porn according to google trends.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/the_more_you_repress_it_the_mo.php
google.com/insights/search/#q=donkey%20sex%2Ccamel%20sex%2Crape%20pictures&cmpt=q

Also, the US state with the US state with the highest per capita consumption of internet porn is Utah (which is probably more “puritanical” than most US states).

Photographing nude people in non-pornographic ways may undo this. Nudity does not equal pornography. It takes wisdom, and more importantly, experience, to discern the difference between non-pornographic nude art and pornography.

BTW, the virtue of modesty entails being appropriately dressed. Which dress is appropriate in which situation takes wisdom, and more importantly, experience, to discern. There’s obviously a huge difference between changing in a locker room, swimming at a beach, having lunch with friends, and going to a wedding. It would be inappropriate for a person wearing clothes appropriate for a wedding in a locker room, while at the same time being inappropriate, disrespectful, and sinful for a person to wear a swimsuit at a wedding.

The difference between nude art (such as in the Vatican) and pornography is primarily intent.

Puritanical has been the accusation made by pornographers against those who would shut down or expose their businesses for what they really are - exploiters of men and women.

There is no logical reason to expose anyone, young or old, to casual nudity. As someone who works in the media, I watch what the media giants are doing. They want some “stars” to appear on video as prostitutes. Once again, their goal has always been to hyper-sexualize the West. This must be fought against by droppoing cable, not watching most movies and turning the TV off most of the time.

Intent is only part of the equation. It is also situational. Any attempt to promote this should be denounced in the strongest terms.

There is a “fashion” catalog that features people wearing nothing. An issue of the Sports Illustrated “swimsuit” issue where the model wore nothing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I agree with this somewhat, as American’s do equate nudity too much with sexually illicit behavior - we are prudes generally and so when our natures rebel against prudish constraints we take things to excess in the other direction - same thing with alcohol consumption

If we are talking about intent, there is a world of difference between the Playboy and Penthouse magazine’s intent, and the intents of these “non-pornographic” sites which proclaim that their intent is to enjoy the beauty of the nude female body as a work of art, which it is - they do not accept photographs of provocative or seductive poses - the photographs are really quite innocent looking, even though they are completely naked - viewed rightly they do not incline the viewer to sin, unlike pornography which pulls and pulls the person towards lust, which, although not inevitable, does take a considerable amount of will power and grace to not give in due to their provocative nature - however, nudity in itself is not provocative, it is the way it is portrayed

However, my general rule is that a person who allows themselves to be photographed unclothed with the understanding that these photographs are going to be for general consumption “out there”, and she would likely be an object of lust, and may cause weak people to fall into lust, then it would be a sin for her to do so - and then it would be a sin by association for me to seek out those photographs, even if my intent is not lust - for me to choose to look at women who have chosen to display themselves nude publicly would be sinful

—toddcatholicsojourner.blogspot.com

Prudes of America unite!

There’s nothing wrong with being a prude.

God bless,
Ed

 

[JAW642]

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.)

---

TO: iceflame1019

From JAW642 on 08/15/2010

I do not believe that there is anything wrong or sinful with a male or female posing completely nude in front of an art class or photography class, even if the students themselves take turns at it.

---

Pope John Paul II wrote:

“The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty… Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness… Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person…The human body is not in itself shameful … Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person.”

---

“Sexual modesty cannot then in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness. There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest… Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person… The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reasons are sensual reactions, and human sensuality in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person.”

—Karol Cardinal Wojtyla (later to become Pope John Paul II)

---

“There is no more meaningful time to be naked than when praying to God, since a state of nudity so very well depicts our true relationship with our creator. We kneel before Him, having nothing but the unclothed body that He fashioned for us. We are always naked in the eyes of God; not only our body, but our every thought, desire and deed lie exposed. I often pray in the nude simply because it seems so fitting.”
—Fr. Kenneth Delano

---

From JAW642 on 08/15/2010

---

 

[edwest2]

In the 1950s, the necessary deception for pornographers was to call their work art. You could get magazines with titles like Art Photography or Artist’s Model. These were innocently labeled as helpful for art students who could not afford a model, and perhaps were used that way in the beginning. In the 1970s, used bookstore owners had them with the girlie magazines. They were not in the Art Reference category.

In the 1960s, the intellectual, the high-minded and those that claimed that they must show certain things in their films for the sake of art sort of disappeared when graphic porn was legalized in the 1970s.

And for those who say we are ‘overdoing’ it somewhere. Today’s porn leaves exactly ZERO to the imagination. Can anyone here point to one piece of Great Art produced by the porn industry?

That is part of the problem: confusing depictions in actual great art and comparing it to graphic pornography which has ZERO literary content or redeeming value.

God bless,
Ed

 

[havana1]

Can anyone here point to one piece of Great Art produced by the porn industry?

“Striporama” with Bettie Page, from 1953. It’s Great Art. (And Bettie Page was a convert to Christianity.)

 

[edwest2]

“Striporama” with Bettie Page, from 1953. It’s Great Art. (And Bettie Page was a convert to Christianity.)

Striporama? Oh brother. My daughter, even if she looked like Bettie Page, would have been taught it is wrong to incite lust in men by appearing in a burlesque film. Why do you think she converted? She converted in 1959. I think her run-in with the FBI and certain pictures taken by a man calling himself Irving Klaw helped as well.

She is a good example of a model who fell in with people with less than moral or decent convictions. Burlesque is certainly not art.

God bless,
Ed