Posing nude for a professional photographer

[joshvanrad]

The human form is a piece of artwork, a creation of God, and should come to be admired. If many many other things can be considered a gift from God, why can physical beauty not be shown as well?

 

[thewanderer]

You publish it in some form or another. In a museum, in a photojournal, in other non-pornographic media. I was thinking in particular of the “A Beautiful Body Project”. It includes both nude and clothed images of many women that are certainly not pornographic. You can Google it for more information if you are interested. It’s purpose is to show the beauty of the female form without alteration as a way of promoting positive body image, especially in a world that is filled with many young women who are developing eating disorders in an attempt to emulate many fashion models. It is quite beautiful, and not the least bit pornographic.

Thank you for letting me know about this project!!! While I can see why some guys might need to steer clear of it (even though it is not pornographic) us women need more role models like this! It is waaay to easy to start looking at ourselves as defective because we don’t match up to Hollywood’s and the media’s photoshopped ideas of beauty. It is inspiring to be able to see other normal and beautiful women and to have their beauty praised and celebrated.

 

[thewanderer]

Honestly, when I began reading this thread I was very very hesitant about the idea of nude photography, but this project has definitely changed my mind. posing for something like this is not immoral. If its gonna be a near occasion of sin for men then they should keep away from it, but before any man tries to condemn such a collection as immoral or sinful you better be sure to understand just how delicate a woman’s body image is. I have in general a good body image. I am aware that the media and hollywood’s portrayal of beauty is false. I have plenty of self-confidence. I am a good looking woman. I know this. I am in no way fat. When I raise my arms my ribs are clearly visible. And despite all of this, even I still fall into the trap of feeling bad about the way my body looks. I look at certain parts of my body and can’t help but think about how chubby it is and how unnatractive it is and how much better I would look if I were thinner. And this is when I already know full-well that the media and hollywood images are fakes. I usually get out of it, at least, I know that I am healthy and do not need to lose weight, that I am not overweight, but I am still drawn towards thinking of parts of myself as ugly because they are not as skinny as I think they need to be (because of media conditioning) in order for them to be beautiful. This is a huge issue for women. And seeing other women standing up for what real women look like and celebrating what that is is so extremely important for all the women out there with poor self images. And having a poor body image for a woman can be unbelievably devastating. It will destroy her confidence in herself and can lead to depression. It can lead her to feel as though she is less worthy of love and respect (and so make it easier for her to fall into a promiscuous lifestyle). It has all sorts of far reaching negative effects on women’s lives. To claim that non-sexual photos of nude/semi-nude women which can help heal women of their poor body images and self-esteem are sinful just because the fact that skin is exposed could lead men to sin if they looked at those pictures is ridiculous. This is a legitimate, good, and moral use of nude photography.

 

[KEP1983]

Minor point, but David is in a gallery, the Accademia, and isn’t and I don’t think ever has been, in a church.

As for Michelangelo and other Renaissance artists, many of them acquired their ability by studying anatomy as a medical student might rather than necessarily from live nude models.

The Renaissance masters studied from live nude models, as did other artists after them. Read Vasari’s “Lives of the Artists.”

In fact, Michelangelo didn’t just draw from nude models. He even performed dissections on cadavers.

I’m a classically trained painter (technically I can trace my teacher-student lineage all the way back to Michelangelo, though what I was taught is more from the 19th century), and I’ve drawn from dozens, if not hundreds, of nude models. I’ve drawn/painted/sculpted from male and female, black and white, big and small, old and young, etc etc. There’s nothing erotic about it.

I quickly googled and found this, from the Metropolitan Museum of Art:
metmuseum.org/toah/hd/anat/hd_anat.htm

"Giorgio Vasari’s Lives of the Artists states that the great Florentine sculptor, painter, and printmaker Antonio Pollaiuolo (1431/32–1498) was the “first master to skin many human bodies in order to investigate the muscles and understand the nude in a more modern way. . . The later innovators in the field, Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) and Michelangelo (1475–1564), who are known to have undertaken detailed anatomical dissections at various points in their long careers, set a new standard in their portrayals of the human figure.”
"The majority of artists, however, limited their investigations to the surface of the body—the appearance of its musculature, tendons, and bones as observed through the skin—and recorded such findings in exquisitely detailed studies after the live nude model "

metmuseum.org/toah/hd/drwg/hd_drwg.htm
"In the next steps of the creative process, artists investigated the poses of the figures from life models. The earliest such extant studies date from the first years of the fifteenth century. . . Artists then integrated the results of studying the figures from life models into a summary design of the composition, in order to pull together the figural arrangements with the lighting effects and setting. "

 

[Bruised_Reed]

You publish it in some form or another. In a museum, in a photojournal, in other non-pornographic media. I was thinking in particular of the “A Beautiful Body Project”. It includes both nude and clothed images of many women that are certainly not pornographic. You can Google it for more information if you are interested. It’s purpose is to show the beauty of the female form without alteration as a way of promoting positive body image, especially in a world that is filled with many young women who are developing eating disorders in an attempt to emulate many fashion models. It is quite beautiful, and not the least bit pornographic.

I can be quite skeptical about projects like this but I like this! It’s very moving.

I don’t see that it’s that different from the images in the video I have linked in my sig line other than the emphasis.

(Link in case I change it.)

 

[joshvanrad]

I just think it’s so unfair to classify every bit of nudity as inherently evil.

There are certainly plenty of ways to make it evil, and it is quite easy to do so, but not every bit of nudity is inherently evil.

 

[DrTaffy]

A statue does not have an immortal soul that can go to hell so he can pose as he wishes.

But a photograph does have an immortal soul??

 

[edwest2]

I just think it’s so unfair to classify every bit of nudity as inherently evil.

There are certainly plenty of ways to make it evil, and it is quite easy to do so, but not every bit of nudity is inherently evil.

I disagree. Nudity has always gone from good to bad. It starts out as what its practitioners call “tasteful” but that is never enough. It then becomes risque and then it’s just a bunch of pictures of naked women whose only purpose is arousal. Hugh Hefner thought he could away with it in Playboy by surrounding partial and full nudity with well-written articles, interviews with people like Fidel Castro, the latest in fashionable men’s clothing, drink and related. He hired some of the best artists to create erotic or other modern works. All in an effort to connect the idea that a cultured man enjoys sex and leering at attractive unclothed women was perfectly fine. That died the moment everyone took off their masks and hardcore pornography became widely available in the 1970s. Who needed articles then?

Just because there’s no sexual activity, it does not mean a nude photo qualifies as anything more than an excuse for arousal, just as the “art” reference magazines of the 1950s would feature some of the same models that would work in the smut industry or become strippers during the period, or both.

Peace,
Ed

 

[E_7]

False. You suggest a black and white dichotomy that is not true of the Catholic tradition, which makes room for morally neutral acts. I played Candy Crush on my phone today. The object is neither good nor bad. The intent to pass time was neither good nor bad. The circumstances of my being off work before school starts are neither good nor bad.

By your logic, since none of those are true goods, then the action of my playing Candy Crush must not be bad. This is not the case. It is simply an action without moral value.

I’m sorry, but with all do respect, you need to take a few courses of Philosophy in order to understand what I said.

 

[thewanderer]

I disagree. Nudity has always gone from good to bad. It starts out as what its practitioners call “tasteful” but that is never enough. It then becomes risque and then it’s just a bunch of pictures of naked women whose only purpose is arousal. Hugh Hefner thought he could away with it in Playboy by surrounding partial and full nudity with well-written articles, interviews with people like Fidel Castro, the latest in fashionable men’s clothing, drink and related. He hired some of the best artists to create erotic or other modern works. All in an effort to connect the idea that a cultured man enjoys sex and leering at attractive unclothed women was perfectly fine. That died the moment everyone took off their masks and hardcore pornography became widely available in the 1970s. Who needed articles then?

Just because there’s no sexual activity, it does not mean a nude photo qualifies as anything more than an excuse for arousal, just as the “art” reference magazines of the 1950s would feature some of the same models that would work in the smut industry or become strippers during the period, or both.

Peace,
Ed

Actually, what you wrote here does not contradict what he said. So it would seem that you do not disagree with his statement. You admit that it starts off good, and then gets turned bad. If it can be good then it is not inherently evil, even if it is easy to turn it into something evil, which is exactly what the other poster said.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I’m sorry, but with all do respect, you need to take a few courses of Philosophy in order to understand what I said.

I understand philosophy fairly well. I got my degree in it at a top ten philosophy department and was fairly active in the department, and unless you are a professor or advanced grad student, odds are that I am more credentialed and have more CV lines involving philosophical matters. You shouldn’t make statements claiming that someone is uneducated simply because they have a different view than you.

My issue was that your claim was either imprecise or wrong, depending on what you were trying to convey. The Catholic moral tradition clearly makes room for morally neutral acts/acts that have no moral value. My playing a game to pass the time on my phone or my scratching my head being examples. So claiming that something either has to be good or bad is missing a large part of human action. If one of the three things that you mentioned is an intrinsic evil/bad, then yes, you would be correct that the action is wrong. That is quite different than something not being good.

All that being said, nude photography in itself is not an intrinsic evil. The object of the human body, since it was created by God and is beautiful, is an intrinsic good. Photography has no moral value in itself and neither does nudity (it is okay to be nude in the bathroom or with your wife in bed, but not at a daycare centre.) That leaves intent and circumstances. If the intent of the act is neutral or good (not intended to be erotic or serve as a form of pornography) and the circumstances of the act are neutral or good (not published as porn for to get off on), then yes, nude photography can be morally acceptable.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

I disagree. Nudity has always gone from good to bad. It starts out as what its practitioners call “tasteful” but that is never enough. It then becomes risque and then it’s just a bunch of pictures of naked women whose only purpose is arousal. Hugh Hefner thought he could away with it in Playboy by surrounding partial and full nudity with well-written articles, interviews with people like Fidel Castro, the latest in fashionable men’s clothing, drink and related. He hired some of the best artists to create erotic or other modern works. All in an effort to connect the idea that a cultured man enjoys sex and leering at attractive unclothed women was perfectly fine. That died the moment everyone took off their masks and hardcore pornography became widely available in the 1970s. Who needed articles then?

You hit the nail on the head. Hefner intended for Playboy to be an erotic magazine that also had all of the articles. The intent was to create erotic images, and the photographers and models posed in ways that did their best to be erotic.

Also, the fact that several people have looked at the example that I provided and have come to the conclusion that it was not erotic suggests that it is possible for there to be such a thing as non-erotic nude art. You may be right that some people may progress from doing this to doing erotic artwork, which is certainly wrong, but there is nothing wrong with nudity in itself.

Just because there’s no sexual activity, it does not mean a nude photo qualifies as anything more than an excuse for arousal, just as the “art” reference magazines of the 1950s would feature some of the same models that would work in the smut industry or become strippers during the period, or both.

Peace,
Ed

A prostitute can have chaste sex with her husband while still being a prostitute, and a porn star can pose nude for non erotic pictures without it being porn. The fact that the same models posed nude for artists in non-pornographic as well as pornographic works simply shows bad judgement on their part. A persons previous actions do not determine the nature of any other given action. It is entirely possible for a serial killer to kill in self-defense. It is the circumstances and intent surrounding each act, in addition to the nature of the act itself, that determines whether the act is morally acceptable. Your reference to the character or the people who posed for art magazines in the 1950s really adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[edwest2]

Actually, what you wrote here does not contradict what he said. So it would seem that you do not disagree with his statement. You admit that it starts off good, and then gets turned bad. If it can be good then it is not inherently evil, even if it is easy to turn it into something evil, which is exactly what the other poster said.

My point is this: there are too many recent historical examples of “we’re doing this tastefully or for some artistic or high-minded purpose” but once people take the bait and they have their foot in the door, they take people to the next, always sinful step. The “it’s art” and “we’re only doing this to show the human body is beautiful,” along with throwing in references to God. Yes, the human body is beautiful but the line should never be crossed to the human body as spectacle. Yes, doctors and those who assist them, will see the nude human body, but it is of necessity.

As someone who had an interest in professional photography, I was captivated by all the things I could do with it, but, in the end, I had to put it aside - for a while. Looking at photography magazines today, it’s either sexy young women or nature photography, along with exotic locales or local ethnic dress and scenes of other lands. So no, there is not a little bit that is OK or temporarily OK. As an assistant art director, I have to understand all the possible relationships an image will have to the average viewer before submitting my opinion to the head art director. Aside from its technical functionality, I have to accurately judge how people will respond to it. And if I see anything objectionable, I will add that to my comments.

I’ve seen the “well, it can be OK sometimes” idea too often to know that 100% of the time, it will be perceived as not OK. There will be no one standing next to buyer of one of our books to explain why a certain cover looks the way it does. Only a person with the necessary experience and real-world feedback will understand how all elements were put together to create an image that has a surface beauty but also conveys a message. At my company, that message tends toward what is called “family friendly.”

Of course, among the secular priesthood called “art critics,” a photographer and his work may have the sacred word “important” attached to his name, which elevates him above others who do photographic art. Once elevated, those discerning readers of art magazines are given the OK to “enjoy” his work no matter how lewd or erotic or sexual it is. The word art cleanses it of all naughtiness.

Since art can be anything today, including the mildly to grossly immoral, people don’t see the falsehood in calling something bad good. Some expert has spoken and we are to rearrange our thinking to believe him - even though it’s obvious that what you’re looking at is inappropriate, to wrong, to downright disgusting.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

My point is this: there are too many recent historical examples of “we’re doing this tastefully or for some artistic or high-minded purpose” but once people take the bait and they have their foot in the door, they take people to the next, always sinful step. The “it’s art” and “we’re only doing this to show the human body is beautiful,” along with throwing in references to God. Yes, the human body is beautiful but the line should never be crossed to the human body as spectacle. Yes, doctors and those who assist them, will see the nude human body, but it is of necessity.

As someone who had an interest in professional photography, I was captivated by all the things I could do with it, but, in the end, I had to put it aside - for a while. Looking at photography magazines today, it’s either sexy young women or nature photography, along with exotic locales or local ethnic dress and scenes of other lands. So no, there is not a little bit that is OK or temporarily OK. As an assistant art director, I have to understand all the possible relationships an image will have to the average viewer before submitting my opinion to the head art director. Aside from its technical functionality, I have to accurately judge how people will respond to it. And if I see anything objectionable, I will add that to my comments.

I’ve seen the “well, it can be OK sometimes” idea too often to know that 100% of the time, it will be perceived as not OK. There will be no one standing next to buyer of one of our books to explain why a certain cover looks the way it does. Only a person with the necessary experience and real-world feedback will understand how all elements were put together to create an image that has a surface beauty but also conveys a message. At my company, that message tends toward what is called “family friendly.”

Of course, among the secular priesthood called “art critics,” a photographer and his work may have the sacred word “important” attached to his name, which elevates him above others who do photographic art. Once elevated, those discerning readers of art magazines are given the OK to “enjoy” his work no matter how lewd or erotic or sexual it is. The word art cleanses it of all naughtiness.

Since art can be anything today, including the mildly to grossly immoral, people don’t see the falsehood in calling something bad good. Some expert has spoken and we are to rearrange our thinking to believe him - even though it’s obvious that what you’re looking at is inappropriate, to wrong, to downright disgusting.

Peace,
Ed

I get that you are worried about people going from morally nuetral or good nude art to erotic and sinful nude art. But the fact that you admit there is a progression neccessarily implies that the original stuff is not sinful, which necessaarily means that nude art is not inherently sinful, which is what the other poster said. I’m just pointing out that your own words show you to agree with him.

 

[thewanderer]

I’ve seen the “well, it can be OK sometimes” idea too often to know that 100% of the time, it will be perceived as not OK. There will be no one standing next to buyer of one of our books to explain why a certain cover looks the way it does.

With the above mentioned project, by the way, it is very clearly explained alongside the pictures that are currently online, just exactly what the point is, and when the actual book is published, it will be very very clear in the book what the purpose is as well. If someone takes a picture in a medical journal or of the works of art in the sistine chapel and uses it to help themselves become aroused that does not mean that there is a problem with those things, it means there is a problem with the people involved. Similarly with the above mentioned project which is so important for so many women. Yeah, maybe it will be harmful to men if they look at it, but it is not meant for men. You can’t seriously claim that women are to be refused a chance to heal just because some men will stick their nose in where it doesn’t belong.

 

[StJudeprayforme]

My point is this: there are too many recent historical examples of “we’re doing this tastefully or for some artistic or high-minded purpose” but once people take the bait and they have their foot in the door, they take people to the next, always sinful step. The “it’s art” and “we’re only doing this to show the human body is beautiful,” along with throwing in references to God. Yes, the human body is beautiful but the line should never be crossed to the human body as spectacle. Yes, doctors and those who assist them, will see the nude human body, but it is of necessity.

Okay. That’s nice. What you are saying is that there is a line.

As someone who had an interest in professional photography, I was captivated by all the things I could do with it, but, in the end, I had to put it aside - for a while. Looking at photography magazines today, it’s either sexy young women or nature photography, along with exotic locales or local ethnic dress and scenes of other lands. So no, there is not a little bit that is OK or temporarily OK. As an assistant art director, I have to understand all the possible relationships an image will have to the average viewer before submitting my opinion to the head art director. Aside from its technical functionality, I have to accurately judge how people will respond to it. And if I see anything objectionable, I will add that to my comments.

I’ve seen the “well, it can be OK sometimes” idea too often to know that 100% of the time, it will be perceived as not OK. There will be no one standing next to buyer of one of our books to explain why a certain cover looks the way it does. Only a person with the necessary experience and real-world feedback will understand how all elements were put together to create an image that has a surface beauty but also conveys a message. At my company, that message tends toward what is called “family friendly.”

Your company seems to have picked a business model that works for it. That really is wonderful. Not all companies choose the same business model, and they are not morally required to do so.

You should read some of St. Alphonsus Ligouri’s works on rigorism. The idea that because something may be wrong, we must always choose the option that excludes doing something that has any probability of being wrong was what he spent his life fighting against. The principles of probibilism and aequiprobibilism, when applied to this case, would both allow for the Catholic to form his conscience in a manner that allows for the use of nude photography in specific instances. The silence of moral theologians on nude or semi-nude art in Churches (the Blessed Virgin breastfeeding or lactating, altar pieces of pre-fall man in the garden, etc.) speaks volumes and leaves at least equal probability that nude art is not always wrong. As such, the principles I listed above come into play, and I, a faithful Catholic, can licitly view certain works of nude art without committing a formal sin.

Of course, among the secular priesthood called “art critics,” a photographer and his work may have the sacred word “important” attached to his name, which elevates him above others who do photographic art. Once elevated, those discerning readers of art magazines are given the OK to “enjoy” his work no matter how lewd or erotic or sexual it is. The word art cleanses it of all naughtiness.

Since art can be anything today, including the mildly to grossly immoral, people don’t see the falsehood in calling something bad good. Some expert has spoken and we are to rearrange our thinking to believe him - even though it’s obvious that what you’re looking at is inappropriate, to wrong, to downright disgusting.

No one in this thread has ever suggested anything like what you are talking about here. Everyone that has advocated against a more rigorous view has clearly condemned pornography, erotic art, and anything else that is vile or obscene and masquerades as art. The issue is that not all nudity need be erotic. Even if 90% of today’s nude art is erotic, that does not mean that the other 10% is automatically condemned to the same fate…

 

[thewanderer]

No one in this thread has ever suggested anything like what you are talking about here. Everyone that has advocated against a more rigorous view has clearly condemned pornography, erotic art, and anything else that is vile or obscene and masquerades as art. The issue is that not all nudity need be erotic. Even if 90% of todays nude art is erotic, that does not mean that the other 10% is automatically condemned to the same fate…

Yup, and erotic nude art that tries to sneak its way into use by pretending not to be erotic is even more dangerous and to be condemned. Nobody disagrees with you about that. The point being that even if 99.99% of nude art is erotic there is still that small tiny amount which is not and which is legitimate.

 

[joshvanrad]

If you have the slightest of impure intentions for capturing the beauty of the naked body then you should not be involved in it. If you have the slightest weakness in chastity when viewing the beauty of the naked body then you should not view it.

I realize there can be a fine line when referencing the beauty of a naked body, but that shouldn’t suggest that we completely dismiss it as a piece of art. If we come to that then we are denying the world of one of God’s most beautiful and earliest creations.

Ite in pace,
Joshua C.

 

[edwest2]

I get that you are worried about people going from morally nuetral or good nude art to erotic and sinful nude art. But the fact that you admit there is a progression neccessarily implies that the original stuff is not sinful, which necessaarily means that nude art is not inherently sinful, which is what the other poster said. I’m just pointing out that your own words show you to agree with him.

The “original stuff” is step one. Get the people to believe it’s OK and THEN get them to go to step two: the sinful stuff. That’s always been the way. That’s the method. I don’t believe there is morally neutral nude photography for a general audience. As I tried to point out, the average viewer takes such images at face value. No matter how many art critics call it art doesn’t make it so.

From the standpoint of the model: “I’m taking off my clothes and posing for this picture.” OK. Why? For a morally neutral reason? Usually, no. Aside from possible use in professional medical publications.

Peace,
Ed

 

[thewanderer]

**The “original stuff” is step one. **

This is only true in cases where people are trying to get people into erotic nude art. Since it is not necessary for everyone who ever does nude art to be atemtping this your attempt to turn this into a universal fails. Also, in the case where a person is attempting to draw people into erotic nude art by starting with non-erotic nude art, the non-erotic nude art is still not sinful, it is the effort to draw people into erotic art that is the problem. I get that you think that prudentially all such things should be avoided, but that still doesn’t make a universal of “all nude art is bad and sinful”.

Get the people to believe it’s OK and THEN get them to go to step two: the sinful stuff. That’s always been the way. That’s the method. I don’t believe there is morally neutral nude photography for a general audience. As I tried to point out, the average viewer takes such images at face value. No matter how many art critics call it art doesn’t make it so.

From the standpoint of the model: “I’m taking off my clothes and posing for this picture.” OK. Why? For a morally neutral reason? Usually, no. Aside from possible use in professional medical publications.

Peace,
Ed

Again, I’m not trying to claim that it is usually for a moral reason. Just that it is possible for it to be for a moral reason, which, by the very fact that you said “usually” instead of “always” it is clear that you also agree with. So I really don’t understand why you keep acting as though you disagree with me.