Seeing nudity in comic I regularly read - a mortal sin?

[Wozza]

It is a common mistake to think that art is about interpretation and not about intent of the artist. Visual art is a medium to convey information, a message, or a story. It is very similar to writing. And internet of the author or artist does have moral significance. A lustful person could read erotica or 50 shades of grey and be titillated, falling to the intent of the author who also would bear moral culpability. The same lustful person could read song of songs and give into lust. But the intent of the author is obviously pure. The moral culpability would fall directly on the lustful reader not the Holy Author.
So it is with art. If you have knowledge that the artist intended to tantalize sexually with the statue of David or that the Infant Christ nursing from the Madona is painted in some horrid attempt at blaspheme then that would be one thing.
Honestly, even putting graphic novel art in this conversation is somewhat insulting to the God inspired works of the past, or present. And yes, none of us even have seen the image in question, but if you wish to assert it is Holy in intent and nature in the name of making a point about a subjective topic of art. I’m listening.

I tend towards your view. That to be described as art something only needs to be meaningful to the artist. And hence to the viewer.

But in regards to a picture of a breastfeeding woman, can the intent only be holy in nature before it can be considered art? Ed seems to believe that paintings of women feeding their chid are ‘boring and common’. Which is somewhat of an odd view.

The number of paintings by recognised artists showing this are simply too many to mention. Can we accept a view that says that they’re all worthless?

 

[Cricket13]

It is a common mistake to think that art is about interpretation and not about intent of the artist.

Honestly, that’s what I’m really thinking about. I don’t know what the comic is about nor do I know the full context of the story. Is the person that had the nude portrait done doing so to tribute themselves in a natural way, sorta like how some classical art used the nude figure to portray that person rather the body, or the opposite of that. I’m trying not to judge the author’s intentions until I fully know. Doesn’t mean I can’t see where everyone is worried about. But I always try to see the artist’s intentions as a big factor to think about.

But in regards to a picture of a breastfeeding woman, can the intent only be holy in nature before it can be considered art?

In my opinion, it really depends on the person’s opinion of art. This is why they say it’s subjective. But I will say, I do wish some art today did lean more towards that way. I had discussions about this with my spiritual director though, he loves art and even had some appreciation for secular subjects because it had the dignity of the artist, it was the artist expressing their feelings. This doesn’t always mean he agrees with how it was done or the message.

Being an artist and a Catholic, I wasn’t sure how to approach my art because it was mainly still life and nature, I always asked if this was honoring God. But a helpful rule of thumb helped me figure it out, If the image doesn’t honor evil, then it’s honoring God.