There's "pornography" in my history book!

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

Paris_Blues

Guest
What are the teachings of the Church about this:

Some of you know I’m currently taking an art history class, therefore, obviously you need a text book! :rolleyes: We’re learning about Ancient Greece and all those gods and goddesses ( :eek: ) and as we read, there’s a bunch of beautiful colorful pictures of Greek statues and temples and all. But there’s also “pornographic” photos of butt-naked gods and soldiers! They are statues. Not to mention the front has to show, how lovely! NOT!

I know the Church is a biggie when it comes to pornography but I was wondering, is this a sin? 😛

I think I know the answer but I just want to make sure! 😉
 
I’m no Church official, but I would say that the Church doesn’t likely view these as pornography. The art of the human body, not perverted in a way to make it unchaste by nature, is a beautiful and celebrated thing, even by the Church.

Even the Vatican has a couple of “naked” statues.
 
Your words, Paris, speak to a misunderstanding of the relation between art and pornography. Pornography has nothing to do with nakedness – it has to do with lust. Almost anything can be pornographic, if the observer experiences lust toward it.

The human body, in art, however, is not understood by the Church to be “pornographic.” It is beautiful, and it was made to be looked upon. The problem is with us, that we are lustful.

Question: Is Michaelangelo’s David pornography?

Of course not. And neither are many of the Greek statues. (There are some which are clearly meant to be looked upon with lust, but you don’t seem to be referring to those.)

John Paul II wrote a beautiful letter to artists. An excerpt:
The theme of beauty is decisive for a discourse on art. It was already present when I stressed God’s delighted gaze upon creation. In perceiving that all he had created was good, God saw that it was beautiful as well.(4) The link between good and beautiful stirs fruitful reflection. In a certain sense, beauty is the visible form of the good, just as the good is the metaphysical condition of beauty. This was well understood by the Greeks who, by fusing the two concepts, coined a term which embraces both: kalokagathía, or beauty-goodness. On this point Plato writes: “The power of the Good has taken refuge in the nature of the Beautiful”.(5)
Click to expand...
Full article linked below.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_23041999_artists_en.html
 
40.png
Genesis315:
There’s naked people on the walls of the Sistine Chapel 👍
Click to expand...
No waaaay! They’re not naked.

They’re covered with paint. 😉
 
Not having seen the statues or art in question, I can’t judge. Nudity in art is not necessarily sinful. Some ancient societies did use statuary and other art forms to produce pornography, just as we use photography and the internet to produce it. But even such works in the context of an art history course need not be sinful if they are used simply to show what other cultures did.
 
Pornography is in the eye of the beholder. It’s pornographic is you use it to turn you on. Naked flesh is just naked flesh, and if you are not a body fascist even ‘ugly’ bodies have beauty if you can see it.
 
40.png
2perfection:
Pornography is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...
I don’t quite agree with that. Internet porn sites are easily distinguishable from sites that show art. Someone with a porn addiction will not be attracted to Michaelangelo or Sistine Chapel illustrations. The same applies to porn produced in past ages.
 
40.png
JimG:
I don’t quite agree with that. Internet porn sites are easily distinguishable from sites that show art. Someone with a porn addiction will not be attracted to Michaelangelo or Sistine Chapel illustrations. The same applies to porn produced in past ages.
Click to expand...
Amen 👍

Who was it that said that pornography was difficult to define, but you know it when you see it. Porn’s entire intent is to arouse lust, it has no other reason for existance. True art intends to elevate our thoughts, not put them in the gutter.
 
It’s art, not porn!! If you feel uncomfortable, perhaps the study of art isn’t for you.
 
I know that “naked” art and porn are two different things. I knew the answer but I just wanted to make sure!

But thanks again for reminding me!
 
I love the human body, I like being naked. The human body is not pornographic. The human body is possibly the most beautiful creation God made.
 
40.png
Prodigal_Son:
Your words, Paris, speak to a misunderstanding of the relation between art and pornography. Pornography has nothing to do with nakedness – it has to do with lust. Almost anything can be pornographic, if the observer experiences lust toward it.

The human body, in art, however, is not understood by the Church to be “pornographic.” It is beautiful, and it was made to be looked upon. The problem is with us, that we are lustful.

Question: Is Michaelangelo’s David pornography?

Of course not. And neither are many of the Greek statues. (There are some which are clearly meant to be looked upon with lust, but you don’t seem to be referring to those.)
Click to expand...
A true story . . .

My wife and I attended a conservative, evangelical, Charismatic university (long story for another post). A good fried – PhD music professor – posed this question to his class:

You are the curator of the museum which has just acquired Michaelangelo’s “David”. What do you do with it?

1/3 of the class said: put it on display.

1/3 of the class said: it is a nude – only allow fine art students to view it.

1/3 of the class said: destroy it, it’s pornographic.

The professor was so horrified he never conducted the exercise in any of his classes again.

Excessive prudishness is also an offense against chastity.
 
Great story, David.

“To the pure, all things are pure.”

It takes inner purity of self to let art reveal, without letting lust obscure that revelation.
 
Paris Blues:
Some of you know I’m currently taking an art history class, therefore, obviously you need a text book! :rolleyes: We’re learning about Ancient Greece and all those gods and goddesses ( :eek: )
Click to expand...
Why ‘eek’? Those gods and goddesses, apart from being features of much of the best art that Europe has ever produced, had a considerable impact on views of God, both in the C1st and later. Learning about them can help us to understand the views of many people in the early Church, and many classically-educated monks in later centuries.
and as we read, there’s a bunch of beautiful colorful pictures of Greek statues and temples and all. But there’s also “pornographic” photos of butt-naked gods and soldiers! They are statues. Not to mention the front has to show, how lovely! NOT!
Click to expand...
That is not pornography: it is art. Ancient Greek standards of modesty and beauty were different to modern ones.

The Greeks did also have pornography. There are more than a few vases which depict people engaging in private ‘sports’.

Edited link and info as per this member’s request
 
Paris Blues:
I know that “naked” art and porn are two different things. I knew the answer but I just wanted to make sure!

But thanks again for reminding me!
Click to expand...
If you knew the answer, why ask the question? I’ve been wondering when the statues and statuary would pop on the scene. What next Frescos? If Art is giving you so much grief, why not sign up for Basket Weaving 101. Dan
 
40.png
dancus:
If you knew the answer, why ask the question? I’ve been wondering when the statues and statuary would pop on the scene. What next Frescos? If Art is giving you so much grief, why not sign up for Basket Weaving 101. Dan
Click to expand...
Look peoples who think I’m some kinda naive young lady…I WAS MAKING A JOKE BUT SERIOUS IN A WAY, OKAY?
:rolleyes:

I KNEW for a fact that the naked statues were art, therefore they are not considered porn, GOT THAT? Like I said before, I was JUST MAKING sure, like you know, double checking!

Sorry if I sound pathetic like that but sometimes I mix my humor with my seriousness! I tend to confuse people that way and I apologize!

However, people, if I am giving you grief or blahness, than don’t read my posts. :sleep:

By the way, I ignore the nakedness of the statues and love the human form! It’s a perfect shape! :yup:
 
I hope this is in line with the poster’s intent:

What is the difference between, say, looking at a painting of a nude person and looking at a picture of a nude person in the same context? Where does one draw the line between pornography and “art”?
 
40.png
Alterum:
I hope this is in line with the poster’s intent:

What is the difference between, say, looking at a painting of a nude person and looking at a picture of a nude person in the same context? Where does one draw the line between pornography and “art”?
Click to expand...
Ususally it has to do with the intention of the artist. Is the artist attempting to get a person aroused sexually? Then that is pronograpy. Is he depicticting a preverse sexual practice? Then that is pronography as well. Also, a viewer can make art into pornography in his or her heart. Is the view looking at the art to appreciate beauty? Then he or she is not guilty of sin. Is one looking at the art for the sake of sexual pleasure? Then that person is guilty of sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top