sacred art outside its context--modesty, meaning, and other questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter pgepps
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pgepps

Guest
I asked the following question of a group of Fundamentalists. I would like you to read it for context, before I pose a complementary question to you.
Assembling a collection of sacred art, you come across a painting in which Jesus is portrayed completely naked. You should…
Click to expand...
a) refuse to purchase it.
b) purchase it, but refuse to exhibit or sell it.
c) purchase it, have it carefully altered to conceal genitalia, then exhibit it.
d) purchase it, do not alter it, but exhibit it with a cover and warning or disclaimer.
e) purchase it, do not alter it, and exhibit it unapologetically.
Click to expand...
NOW, a majority of respondents in that context overwhelmingly chose (a). They gave three basic reasons for their choice:
  1. wouldn’t buy “sacred art” at all.
  2. specifically, reject representations of Jesus (Deity shouldn’t be depicted).
  3. specifically, reject nudity (whether in sacred or secular subjects) as pornographic.
What I would love to hear from members at Catholic Answers is your response to these reasons. Specifically, should sacred art be exhibited outside its own tradition? Should representations of Deity be accorded special treatment in art collections and exhibits? Should nakedness be treated differently in sacred art or “great art” than in other settings?

I’m going to re-post the original poll, as well, so please go ahead and post your answers for comparison.

Thanks in advance. As this is a semi-public forum, your words may be quoted in a research project concerning exhibition of a major work altered “for modesty” in a Fundamentalist institution; but you will only be identified directly if you explicitly request it.
 
I purchased an icon from Trinity Stores by Robert Lentz titled…“Lord of the Dance”…except for a print of “Presence in the Midst”, it’s the only “religious art” I possess that is displayed.

“Lord of the Dance” has the Christ representation nude(only pubic hair is shown), sitting cross legged drumming…he also posses antlers…
 
simply being nude does not equal being pornographic.

The statue of David is nude; it is certainly not pornographic. There is much good art that depicts nudity that is not pornographic.

If one defines nude as pornographic, then everyone who takes a shower or is born is pornographic, and that is simply not true.
 
Sacred art is represented in most Catholic and other denomination Churches. Iconogrophy is still painted to this day. The Human body is a beautiful creation of our Lord and has been painted, or made into statues in a form not degrading or pornographic. Take as an example, Michelangelo and the Sisteen Chapel. In the Creation of Adam, Adam is nude, then Eve is nude in the Creation of Eve and so on and so forth. Mary Magdalene has been portraid semi-nude in many a painting. Paintings of Christ only help us in our spiritual growth, to help us imagine what He might have looked like during his stay on earth. Art is beautiful, Sacred Art is essential.

Peace.
 
I just wouldn’t want a nude image of Jesus. It’s not because I “refuse” in the sense that I find it offensive, I just wouldn’t choose to buy such a thing.
 
I voted that I wouldn’t buy it. Afterwards, I had to think of the reasons that this would offend me since I know that our Lord was stripped of His clothing and displayed on the cross naked to humiliate him. So why would I not buy him depicted in such a way? I really had to search inside to figure it out and came to the conclusion that it’s enough that I know in my head and my heart how he was crucified, and it wouldn’t add to my sorrow to see everything. To me, it’s just showing him being humiliated even now, in modern times, do I need to see more?
This is my Saviour, I don’t want to be praying and imagining his genitals, I want to see the Christ in my thoughts, and I feel that giving Him that bit of dignity, is only fitting. I tend to meditate and having seen what an artist thought our Lord would have looked like naked, knowing myself, the genitals would keep popping in my head… I don’t need that to distract me.
Now, it’s funny that I’ve seen paintings of the Virgin Mary breastfeeding our Lord as an infant, yet this doesn’t bother me. My mind doesn’t dwell on that when I pray the rosary.

Perhaps I have strange foibles… but they are what they are.
 
pgepps said:
I asked the following question of a group of Fundamentalists. I would like you to read it for context, before I pose a complementary question to you.

NOW, a majority of respondents in that context overwhelmingly chose (a). They gave three basic reasons for their choice:
  1. wouldn’t buy “sacred art” at all.
  2. specifically, reject representations of Jesus (Deity shouldn’t be depicted).
  3. specifically, reject nudity (whether in sacred or secular subjects) as pornographic.
What I would love to hear from members at Catholic Answers is your response to these reasons. Specifically, should sacred art be exhibited outside its own tradition? Should representations of Deity be accorded special treatment in art collections and exhibits? Should nakedness be treated differently in sacred art or “great art” than in other settings?

I’m going to re-post the original poll, as well, so please go ahead and post your answers for comparison.

Thanks in advance. As this is a semi-public forum, your words may be quoted in a research project concerning exhibition of a major work altered “for modesty” in a Fundamentalist institution; but you will only be identified directly if you explicitly request it.
Click to expand...
It depends on what the theme of the collection is. Sacred art is broad in scope. If it was sacred art for devotional purposes, I would not buy the piece, because I think it would be a distraction for people who come to worship. If was a collection of sacred art for a museum exhibit and the piece was an important work, then I would buy it and hang it as the artist intended.

That said, there are lots of works with nude representations of Jesus especially in the mid to later Renaissance, or Quattrocento and Cinquecento.

Your friend,
Sufjon
 
I wouldn’t buy it because that just isn’t the kind of thing that appeals to me. If it were otherwise an ordinary crucifix, then I would see nothing wrong with someone else having one and displaying it without censorship.
This reminds me of last year when I was in Arizona visiting a small mission on the Navajo reservation. My group visited a small shrine where there was a slightly-larger-than-life wooden crucifix with Jesus’s . . . Jesushood clearly visible. It was not to my tastes and it distracted me a little, but I realized that I wasn’t looking at it the right way. I had never been to that part of the country and I was in tourist mode, so I wasn’t viewing it as someone who had come there to pray. The people who would be visiting the shrine regularly would be there to focus solely on Jesus. And you know what? If they can look past the nudity and it helps them get closer to God, good for them. I’m not going to denounce it because it didn’t work for me.
 
I would buy it to contribute to a museum or a religious organization that could benefit from its use. I don’t find it religiously offensive, as our Christ was truly stripped of his clothes during his crucifixion, so it’s not a portrayel of him outside of context.

As for my personal taste…I would equate that as to having a piece of art with my father naked, and just wouldn’t be comfortable looking at that every day, even in historical context.
 
NOW, a majority of respondents in that context overwhelmingly chose (a). They gave three basic reasons for their choice:
  1. wouldn’t buy “sacred art” at all.
  2. specifically, reject representations of Jesus (Deity shouldn’t be depicted).
  3. specifically, reject nudity (whether in sacred or secular subjects) as pornographic.
What I would love to hear from members at Catholic Answers is your response to these reasons. Specifically, should sacred art be exhibited outside its own tradition? Should representations of Deity be accorded special treatment in art collections and exhibits? Should nakedness be treated differently in sacred art or “great art” than in other settings?

I’m going to re-post the original poll, as well, so please go ahead and post your answers for comparison.

Thanks in advance. As this is a semi-public forum, your words may be quoted in a research project concerning exhibition of a major work altered “for modesty” in a Fundamentalist institution; but you will only be identified directly if you explicitly request it.

My original answer was in reference to sacred art as asked above, but the Crucifix for me is another story. I personally would rather have our Lord covered since He already gave us everything on that cross for our Salvation, even though I understand that he was stripped in His suffering for us.
 
In all art I personally find nothing wrong with nudity. It is natural and the way that we were made to be. With that said, I would have to see the picture in question and if it is something I would buy if the figures were clothed I would still buy it if they were nude. I would buy it and display it without hesitation. There is a huge difference between the photograph on John Lennon naked hugging Yoko Ono and the images you would see in a Hustler.

I may even find the initial response to seeing Christ portrayed nude shocking at first, not because of his nudity, but because he is almost never portrayed in the nude. I believe that in art we have the opportunity to convey powerful messages and seeing him nude could evoke a strong sense of his bearing all of himself for our sake; it could humanize him and/or could convey a sense of natural peace in the way that God created us to be. The context and the quality of the art would be key factors in whether or not I would purchase any artwork much less an image of Christ.

I don’t believe that there is a need to edit art. If you don’t like it, let it alone, but don’t try to censor an artist who is trying to convey something to their audience. I find the Renaissance artists’ usage of the nude generally to be very powerful. The Creation of Adam is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen and it shows how we were meant to be, not what we became. Sacred art/great art is no different than any other true art work; it is meant to be evocative. It generally is meant to make you feel as a response to seeing it.

I believe that sacred art should be exhibited to all who want to see it and if a person chooses to not view it, that is their personal choice. I think that the impact of sacred art may be lost to someone who has no connection to Christianity; however at the very least they could view the art and decide to better understand why a Christian would hang this piece in their personal gallery or home. That may then take them on their own personal journey. A Fundamentalist could opt to misconstrue a nude Christ if they chose, but I know many how have been to Rome and seen the Sistine Chapel about fallen to the knees in awe of its beauty. We shouldn’t try to hide our art work because of what someone may think of it but show it because of what someone may think of it.

I hope this answers your question and if you want to use a quote I have no problem with it. I am not very eloquent, but this is your paper.
:o
 
icamay said:
As for my personal taste…I would equate that as to having a piece of art with my father naked, and just wouldn’t be comfortable looking at that every day, even in historical context.
Click to expand...
I think this sentence best fits with the way I think about things like this. Thank you all for your replies.

Now, having gotten a general baseline of reactions: Would you change your opinion at all if I told you this was an Infant Christ? (it is, in fact, a Calvaert of St. Francis receiving the Christ Child from the Blessed Virgin.)
 
pgepps said:
I think this sentence best fits with the way I think about things like this. Thank you all for your replies.

Now, having gotten a general baseline of reactions: Would you change your opinion at all if I told you this was an Infant Christ? (it is, in fact, a Calvaert of St. Francis receiving the Christ Child from the Blessed Virgin.)
Click to expand...
Oh that’s sneaky! The naked infant would not trouble me at all.
 
Loboto-Me said:
Oh that’s sneaky! The naked infant would not trouble me at all.
Click to expand...
Sincerely didn’t mean to “ambush” anyone, but did want to get the answers differentiated on “modesty” and related grounds before exploring the details. I found the way you thought through the question helpful.

I often find that certain Madonna Lactans images are distracting, and sometimes actually quasi-erotic, so there you have it–there is clearly some person-to-person variance best dealt with, IMHO, by deciding what to stop and contemplate and what to glance past on the way. 🙂
 
Assuming that in all aspects I found the work to be well done, respectful and otherwise in good taste, I see nothing wrong with purchasing sacred art that contains nudity and displaying openly where appropriate, whether that is in a museum, a library, a room at home, or some similar place.

Peace,
Robert
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top