"porn"?

[Elizium23]

Porn is any depiction of the nude or partly nude female body designed purely for sexual arousal. Speaking as an artist, it is wrong to do so. To ‘appreciate their beauty’ was the excuse I used to use. It is wrong.

Art does not get a free pass. It must be viewed on a case by case basis. Lust is a thought that the person in the video/photo/art is hot and that it is this thought that overrides any other thought one might have about the work. And it is this thought that remains uppermost in your mind. Just be honest.

This is a poster who is known for going on and on about how nudity is always porn. No exceptions. No such thing as artistic nudity. However, I didn’t realize that only the female body was so offensive.

If I’ve misrepresented anything, he can correct me.

Ed said that art must be viewed on a case by case basis. He said this because the likes of Playboy are often referred to as “art”. So just calling something “art” doesn’t make it not porn. However, Ed has clearly made an exception for art which you denied and misrepresented.

 

[clem456]

I think that in order to correct me you would actually have to be correct.

Ed limited his definition to women, seemingly intentionally.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing with here. Are you saying that his definition was not gendered? It clearly was.

Is it within the realm of consideration that Ed, as a hetero man, would not think about porn that depicts males? Or is he not allowed a perspective?

 

[njlisa]

CCC 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. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

 

[808Catholic]

Porn is any depiction of the nude or partly nude female body designed purely for sexual arousal. Speaking as an artist, it is wrong to do so. To ‘appreciate their beauty’ was the excuse I used to use. It is wrong.

Talk to your priest about it.

Peace,
Ed

Women (or men) don’t have to be naked to be appreciated for their beauty. The need to see them naked infers the intent is sinful.

 

[filiusdextris]

Women (or men) don’t have to be naked to be appreciated for their beauty. The need to see them naked infers the intent is sinful.

Sure, if subjective beauty partly is derived from shape, complexion, bone structure, even a clothed person can rightly be called beautiful. And certainly the face is the most important aspect of subjective beauty, which we all uncover.

I’m going cautiously here. I don’t want to dwell too much about a “need to see [nakedness]” since that implies a slavery to passions and lust which is sinful. You’re probably right, although the sin could still be less sinful compared to worse habits, so it could still be an improvement in some people.

But let’s change your statement to a “desire to see nakedness.” Now, I think we’re dealing with a neutral concept, with either good or bad ends. Let’s explore the potential good ends.

Why do we cover the sex organs? Partly due to shame, partly due to protection and prudence (we’re fallen and prone to sin). Note that all of these reasons are not natural reasons, they are in response to an event, original sin. One natural reason is curiosity, which while good, can lead us astray (here, with lust) if not checked. In our Edenic state we were naked, and it was good. In our eschatological state, our clothes are not likely to be raised along with our bodies. Our eternities will be naked too.

Our naked bodies show our objective beauty that everyone has. Our parts have such harmony, allowing motion and grasping. Our sex organs allow reproduction and nurturing. It is very admirable and therefore beautiful. Our naked bodies are made in the image and likeness of God, and in the natural world (creation), are the closest glimpse of the Trinity God we can see. Each and every one of us, friends and families and enemies, has this beauty, and it is amazingly good. This is harder to appreciate when we are clothed, so some of the good desire to appreciate the naked body stems from this line of thinking.

Of course, some of us were gifted with subjective beauty too. Because of the Fall, most good Christians with such beauty keep themselves clothed except with their spouse and a few functional exceptions (shower, doctor). To dwell on marriage is a bit off-topic here. However, a few people are willing to show their bodies as a gift to the rest of the world with the proper precautions. We should never thrust nudity on the world, which is why all public “indecency” laws should be upheld and several warnings need to be placed before mass media programs. But for someone who is properly disposed not to lust (a pure person) or needs to relearn the goodness of the body from years of past depravity, displaying nudity in a controlled environment with a context that lifts the minds and hearts to God is good. We appreciate the work of the artist and the gift of the model.

We desperately need good Catholic artists and models in this world who understand the theology of the body to portray nudity in an uplifting way. Right now, the pure or recovering Catholic likely has no great options in the modern forms of art unless they live near a modern art museum (even then, not so much), but that’s beyond my knowledge.

In these cases, the desire to see one naked is no worse than the desire to appreciate the beauty of the sky or the grand canyon which are far less beautiful or the desire of any other form of entertainment that is morally neutral like a play or sports. In some ways, this desire has way more potential upside. So if by “need” you meant “desire” I have to give a cautious disagreement.

If you want some lengthy JPII or other quotes along these lines, I think I can find some for you.

 

[clem456]

If you want some lengthy JPII or other quotes along these lines, I think I can find some for you.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm

Pack a lunch.
This document is so worth reading. Or the Christopher West “translation”. It is life-changing stuff in so many ways.

 

[edwest2]

Having taken basic drawing, art appreciation, life drawing class and advanced painting, I soon realized my instructors and even the city art museum weren’t telling me the truth. But to get back to the subject, yes, porn was dressed up as “art” in the 1950s. I once owned a collection of books by “famous” glamor photographers who posed their models with props or in settings that mimicked classic paintings. That was my first mistake. In 1951, a “high class” stripper was arrested. She was referred as an Ecdysiast. And she was featured in magazines of the time.

Since then, the line between art and porn blurred year after year. By the end of the 1960s, any semblance of art was being removed from what still is porn today, and replaced by graphic porn where the props don’t matter.

Where is the outlet for the artist who takes nude or semi-nude photos of women? Where would such work be published? There are no standards today. Whatever can be done is being done. And it is creeping into movies where full nudity is presented in a story and is totally unnecessary. The same with partial nudity. Once filmmakers got their ‘freedom,’ they took every opportunity to go from partial to full nudity to simulated sex scenes.

And now, according to some, porn has gone “mainstream.” A wish, I’m sure. But for those who are addicted, and I do understand, it’s legal so it must be OK on some level. It’s not.

The only form of art where nudity may be appropriate is sacred art. There is nothing wrong with the nude human body but without standards, the default position is unacceptable. Only sacred art defines things properly.

Art can be good in many ways, but that cannot be said for the vast majority being presented today. One’s holiness and properly formed conscience are more important. If one looks at the music of the 1950s, a lot of it had its roots in religious music and it had, for the most part, totally inoffensive lyrics.

Porn strips men and women of their good conscience, their correct understanding of the nude human body and degrades both those that appear in it and those who watch it.

Even in sacred art, nudity must be presented carefully and with the proper intent. I have seen a recent attempt at a nude that failed badly because the artist’s skill in depicting the female figure was lacking, along with the cloth she was laying on. As an assistant art director, I must be able to give solid answers and a clear, concise description of anything I see in a painting. Perspective, form, lighting, mood, prop elements, composition and comments related to standards, good or bad. I have only a few minutes of analysis time to pick out all these elements and I have standards of my own that have been gleaned from the best sources. I can’t call it worthy of printing without the head art director agreeing and explaining why, and I must be prepared to answer any question he may have. I have done this so often that it seems to take no effort at all but is based of years of doing it, and understanding how the average person perceives things.

Perception and a well-formed conscience. Porn falls outside that category. Art has no standards that I can think of. It is broken down into a bunch of cult-like groups, ranging from pieces of plastic and metal “is a man’s life,” along with a spiral of duct tape being “a man’s life!” Good old art indoctrination class. A bag of garbage with a red X on it suddenly becomes “art” because the high priests of art: art critics, gallery owners and art museums, have given it their blessing - and you have to see the way they see, which is ‘distortion or anything is art’ if someone important says so.

They’re even trying to sell porn as art. That is how bad things are right now. And becoming a skilled illustrator of the human form takes years. Years. To get correctly. The pose, the facial expression, the lighting - a subtle change in any or all alters the emotional aspect of the image. Man or woman looking at a nude should be moved, and the Great Masters knew how to do this. But who studies the work of these men anymore? What art school will give you the knowledge you really need? After I quit college because I realized I was wasting time and money, I stumbled across a display in the Industrial Design department at a prestigious local art school. I should have dumped my art classes and taken Industrial Design. At least they had to draw real things and understand all the things I’ve mentioned. No broken pieces of asphalt at the the art museum with a small white card next to it that read: “Please do not remove. This is art.” Wow. Just wow.

Ed

 

[filiusdextris]

That’s a fine lament, Ed, and I have no doubt, a historically accurate description of the last sixty years. But even as a truth, it’s not a necessary truth. Humans have the capability to aspire to God with the newer mediums even as much as the old ones. Catholic Answers should not close that door in anyone’s face where there is both purity and hope. JP2 didn’t, even though he had the power to bind, although he gave numerous warnings and helped to educate us of the various dimensions involved.

You say there is no market for religious inspired nudity in art? I wouldn’t assume this at all, but if true, the field may have to be relegated to amateurish explorations at the beginning. Because our world is already so fallen to its culture-of-death status, rather than discourage, I think Catholic artists need to encourage unique perspectives of the the theology of the body in art mediums.

It CAN be done, even if the road ahead is an arduous climb. While keeping a healthy skepticism, let’s keep an open mind and stay positive.

 

[edwest2]

Your answer is much appreciated, but let us look at how art is defined today.

Real art or fine art has a structure that reminds me of a type of religious group. There are gatekeepers - “an attendant at a gate who is employed to control who goes through it” or what. If you want your work to appear in the finer fine art magazines, be prepared, you have to convince the gatekeepers to let you in.

There is a particular fine art magazine I follow which I won’t name since my goal is not to embarrass anyone. You have a full page with the painting/mixed media/sculpture/paper cutting, which makes absolutely no sense - ever. But on the opposite page, you hear from the artist. And on each page, you learn how far from reality each piece actually is. They describe the absolutely bizarre reasons for what they have depicted. Their standard is “it is whatever I say it is” even if the viewer cannot locate a hint of it in their description and connect it to the piece in question. How is this relevant? Others have no standards other than their own. This radical individualism is being promoted as something worthwhile while having no actual meaning to the average viewer. It is a closed and “elite” world because someone important said so.

Commercial art, on the other hand, is considered prostitution by ‘real’ artists because you are being paid money to draw what someone wants. And most published commercial art is unoffensive. And that bothers certain “schools of thought” in the real art world. “Your art should offend” or “The viewer, not the artist, is responsible for interpreting the work!” Make sense? No.

Now let’s look at the beginning of porn in art starting in the late 1960s. I was there. Millions of dollars were spent on buildings, photographers, filmmakers, prostitutes, printers, distributors and support personnel. And their lawyers said they had “the First Amendment right” to allow public access to this sort of thing, including bundled copies of magazines dating to the 1950s, so the connection was clear. The pornographers were going to take it down to the next level. No more seedy, secretive places to buy or exchange photos, no more shame - not of the human body - but about lust. No more camera clubs or “art films.” I had a magazine from the 1950s that had photos (from the neck down) of what strippers were allowed to wear from various states. Oh yeah. They were working very hard to keep the momentum going. The clothing ranged from what was a miniskirt with some very sheer pieces to what some women wear on the beach or as underwear today. Non-functional underwear. It was all to get the law up to date - in the 1950s. It was all built, brick by brick, by people with tenacity and an evil evangelism. Where did the money come from?

Nudity in sacred art should not be the goal, but a goal that is born from the subject matter and not nudity for the sake of nudity. My company has access to the best of the best, however, these people are all illustrators of real and fantastic things. The public, on the other hand, does not, for the most part, know who they are. The other problem, which can be overcome, and I know artists who have done it, is money. Like any job, it is far easier to take one with a weekly paycheck than to take your chances being an artist and building a reputation and being able to deliver work of such high quality that you can make a good living at it. A lot of people - and I fully understand this - need that full-time job.

I have great hope, because I have seen a few examples, that sacred art will and is returning to its rightful place and will move into greater public view since most of the better sacred art is being done for Churches and other religious locations. There is no Catholic Arts magazine in existence showing the public the masterful skill of those doing sacred art today. I do have hope.

The new media is nothing. It doesn’t matter what tools you use. If you can’t draw, you can’t draw. If I taught, and I have taught, art to students today, I would tell them to put away their graphics tablets and computers and hand each of them a pencil and piece of plain paper and tell them to draw me a figure - any figure - from imagination.

Peace,
Ed

 

[filiusdextris]

One problem is that nudity is so socially taboo in Christian social circles. I know at one point Christopher West used the term “angelism” to describe modern Manicheist tendencies, likening the heresy to pornography/lust, opposite ends of the same spectrum. The God-fearing artists (or even the models) who might treat or make use of the topic of nudity probably belong to church communities where they would be condemned outright for even thinking about it. Even if they truly are pure and would be responsible in its presentation, they risk church ostracism. Even talking about it as openly as I have on this thread, giving it every possible benefit of the doubt, would, I imagine if the post were not anonymous, lead to no small amount of rash judgment against me in real life.

Ed, as someone who has read your posts on here for years, I would describe your last post in this thread as the most open-minded and hopeful that I’ve seen on this particular subject. As an artist, what concrete advice (beyond “don’t bother, just give up”) would you give the glory-to-God seeking artist on the production end of an exploration in nude art? What’s his or her best option if he doesn’t want to face unwarranted criticism from his Christian peers? Anonymity? Education? Avoidance? Confrontation? I would appreciate your thoughts.