A medical photograph is very rarely going to require a subject to be completely nude anyway. Even if the photograph is of the genitalia, there isn’t any reason for the patient to be completely undressed and the photograph would only show the abnormality and the area directly around it, not any part of the person that could be identified. Examining completely anonymous diseased private parts is not erotic by any measure.
Great point. If the photograph is to show an abnormality, the photograph is cropped to focus on the subject matter, the disease, tumor, etc. That’s a reason patients are draped or wear gowns during examination or surgery. Only the field being reviewed or area necessary for the surgical procedure is exposed. Having seen a number of surgical procedures, what the doctor sees, usually through loupes, is a tiny portion of the patient’s body which is covered and draped completely (if nothing else for warmth the OR is COLD.
Not the actual person? Then can you explain why certain magazines print photos of actual persons in various states of undress? No particular reason? And why the internet is full of such (non-medically necessary) photos and what they are called? Not to put too fine a point on it - Pornography? Call it soft porn if you want but it has one, only one, purpose - to INCITE LUST. Most of my friends and people I know are artists and writers. I spent some time at University in drawing, painting and life-drawing classes. I found the latter useless for those who did not understand the fundamentals of drawing. But we were never encouraged to go in that direction. Art today, is about distorting photos, or cutting up paper or blotches of paint thrown against a canvas. Anatomy books with drawings are fine but photos? No.
Ed, I’m just curious…
What are we talking about, here? Things weren’t the same when those paintings were done, and we don’t know about models being used (I doubt we had nude men and women standing inside the Vatican, but please let me know if that was the case
).You can find non-erotic nude photography. Photography is an art form, just the same as painting.
Morally not acceptable.
No, there probably weren’t nude models in the Vatican. But I can absolutely assure you there were nude models in the studios of the artists making the art!What are we talking about, here? Things weren’t the same when those paintings were done, and we don’t know about models being used (I doubt we had nude men and women standing inside the Vatican, but please let me know if that was the case
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.
Art is not an entitlement to do anything. I spent enough time at University to realize that “modern art” is a mind game. Instead of doing what their muse commanded, I saw the abstract artists just doing reruns of what had gone before, just like teenage boys trying to draw a superhero from a comic book. Art is not some bulletproof place where all things are permitted the moment the word art is added.
I never claimed that art was a broad license to do whatever you want. “**** Christ” is obviously sinful, as would be pornography.
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.
No. Definitely not. I suggest everyone contact the small fashion clique that decides - never the public - what face and figure will represent the perfect female, regardless of age. Have your local anorexia specialist contact them as well. Fashion models are simply product. They starve themselves.
CCC 2354:
No sexual acts are depicted, real or simulated. The pictures are not erotic in nature, though they are nude. They do not fit the secular or Catholic definition of pornography.
Minor point, but David is in a gallery, the Accademia, and isn’t and I don’t think ever has been, in a church.