Totally random question: nude works of art?

[Wabi Sabi]

After googling "brutalist architecture" and hitting the image tab I'm quite confused. It may not appeal to one's personal aesthetics, but where's the moral ambiguity? :confused:

[PeacefulChaos]

How do you feel about your dc viewing nudes in paintings and/or sculptures? I'm not talking gratuitous nudity here, I mean the "great" works of art that have nudity.

 

I'm particularly interested in those of you with teenage sons. Do you attempt to avoid the works, dialogue about them, other?

 

How have you and your dc handled this?

 

Thanks!

 

I actually think I'd be more comfortable with it with older children/teenagers than with younger ones. At that point they are more aware of human anatomy in a matter of fact way, as opposed to being younger and it either causing 1. snickering because it's a naked person :rolleyes: (middle school ages or so? :lol: ) or 2. questions about the body that hadn't been brought up or noticed beforehand (elementary age).

[ElizaG]

After googling "brutalist architecture" and hitting the image tab I'm quite confused. It may not appeal to one's personal aesthetics, but where's the moral ambiguity? :confused:

Have you read Plato's Republic? A deep concern with aesthetics -- in the sense of forming young people on models that the teacher considers beautiful and harmonious, rather than ugly and disturbing -- has always been a part of classical education.

 

It comes back to the way we learn, through imitation (mimesis) [ETA -- it was Aristotle who wrote more about that aspect of things... sorry I don't have references, things are a bit busy here].

 

And architecture, in particular, isn't just a matter of personal taste. It's part of the environment, and is thus imposed on those around us, for better or worse. Our children's sensibilities in this area are going to affect the future of our society.

[PeacefulChaos]

It doesn't bother me and I've never avoided it or tried covering it up...

 

..unlike, say, these homeschoolers:

Naked Statue of Greek God Horrifies California Homeschoolers

That's hysterical. Oh my goodness... and the fact that the link goes to naruto forums is pretty funny, too... :D

That's way over the top. As is 'censoring' art images in books. I've heard about people doing it to magazines and stuff where the pictures are more provocative (still don't know that I'd do it)...

I don't censor, unless the work is particularly graphic, but sometimes the boys self-censor. My dd does not.

 

We have this page-a-day calendar from the Met. and when someone is particularly naked the boys have a tendency to skip that day.

 

Perhaps it is because they grew up in a hippie neighborhood and have seen enough nudity for a lifetime! :D

 

By the way, we love this calendar! It is a beautiful and simple (and inexpensive! It was $12) way to add picture study to the day. The presentation is elegant, and looks great in our home. We take turns changing the picture, and have learned so much. The kids are already begging for certain pages so they can hang them in their rooms. I highly recommend it! You can get them from Barnes and Noble and similar stores, but Amazon had a great price.

Nice! I may look at getting one of those. :)

[stripe]

This has just never been an issue with any child I've ever known. My kids have seen lots of nude art, nude bodies in the Bodies exhibit, anatomically correct illustrations in books, and mostly-naked people in documentaries; that has never made them want to take their clothes off in public. They understand that in our culture, people do not walk around naked. They understand the difference between art & real life.

 

On many European beaches, naked toddlers and topless women are perfectly normal. In some countries there are public spas where it's perfectly normal for men and women to be naked in the same pool. In some countries, it's perfectly normal for families and even neighbors to take saunas together naked. Different cultures have different mores about what is and isn't acceptable in terms of nudity, and it has nothing to do with how much art they look at — nor do the countries with fewer restrictions on nudity have higher rates of sexual assault. I think the way nudity is 100% sexualized in US culture is pretty strange and kind of dysfunctional, actually.

 

Jackie

 

I understand it does not apply to you, and that you think my question was theoretical. It was not a theoretical question. I was also not asking about sexual behavior or assault. I am not the one strruggling to understand the difference. I was asking about explaining it to children who do not understand.

 

But if someone would like to have a conversation instead of saying it's not possible because European kids don't act that way, feel free to comment.

[justamouse]

Feign ignornance if anyone mentions it. :)

 

At one of the hotels in Vegas, there's gold statues (I think more than one) of a mermaid in the lobby. I was there with my parents and their friends when they were all in their mid-70s. A little boy came in, ran right up to one statue and caressed the mermaid's curves. The mother wanted to die. The child was just enjoying the art. The older folks I was with found it downright innocent and amusing, and they weren't known as the most "open" group of people on the planet. I thought at the time, something like, "I guess that's the whole point of art!"

 

I remember going to the Met and seeing Rodin's Danaide and reaching out to touch it--the docent so sweetly asked me not to, and showed me the oils from the hands of all the people that had touched it. It was so sensual, you couldn't help it-it was a totally involuntary action. You really expected to feel it breathe under your fingertips.

[Bluegoat]

After googling "brutalist architecture" and hitting the image tab I'm quite confused. It may not appeal to one's personal aesthetics, but where's the moral ambiguity? :confused:

 

Here is what Wikipedia says about the philosophy behind Brutalism:

 

Brutalism as an architectural philosophy, rather than a style, was often also associated with a socialist utopian ideology, which tended to be supported by its designers, especially Alison and Peter Smithson, near the height of the style. Critics argue that this abstract nature of Brutalism makes the style unfriendly and uncommunicative, instead of being integrating and protective, as its proponents intended. Brutalism also is criticised as disregarding the social, historic, and architectural environment of its surroundings, making the introduction of such structures in existing developed areas appear starkly out of place and alien. The failure of positive communities to form early on in some Brutalist structures, possibly due to the larger processes of urban decay that set in after World War II (especially in the United Kingdom), led to the combined unpopularity of both the ideology and the architectural style.

 

I think the question of the link of the style to urban decay is interesting, because those failed social experiments were attached to the same underlying philosophy of the architecture. There seemed to be any number of theories about how people ought to live, without really accounting for real human behavior. As places to live and work in they often look very impressive and grand, but give little sense of protection or shelter, for example, and people feel uncomfortable living in the spaces. I think that is why they have been more successful as public buildings as opposed to private ones.

 

I don't think I'd keep a child from experiencing such buildings, but I don't think I would tend to endorse their philosophy of architecture.

 

They seem to have been more successful with furniture for some reason.

[Sparkle]

Ohhhh... Noo.. Hope none of my friends catch wind of this. It's frankly embarrassing to be lumped together with these people! :glare: :001_huh::tongue_smilie:

 

 

I know, right? This happened in my city, and there was a pretty big brouhaha over it at the time. I just wanted to hide.

[justamouse]

I understand it does not apply to you, and that you think my question was theoretical. It was not a theoretical question. I was also not asking about sexual behavior or assault. I am not the one strruggling to understand the difference. I was asking about explaining it to children who do not understand.

 

But if someone would like to have a conversation instead of saying it's not possible because European kids don't act that way, feel free to comment.

 

I think what she's trying to express is that this -for lack of a better word, Puritanical- view of nudity is new. It actually does spring from the movement in Europe- but historically, it was nothing for a woman to show a full breast while nursing, or for people to bathe together-it was very natural, and still is.

 

I mean, the Roman toilets Yikes!! Now I draw my line with #2 in front of strangers-but that was commonplace!

 

This hypersexulaized view of the body is a very new, and American thing.

 

And, I actually--not keep-but don't stress, certain architectures and things-for their lack of beauty and for what they stood for, so in that I agree with Eleanor.

 

Signing off, lightening storm and NO humidity! Blew out in 3 minutes!

Edited June 22, 2012 by justamouse

[Amy in NH]

No problem. The human body is beautiful and there's nothing to be ashamed of.

[TravelingChris]

We have been taking our kids to museums, including art museums, since they were babies. Never colored in clothes in books or anything like that. About the only stuff I censored ever were some photograph exhibits which in my view were pornographic. Those exhibits didn't even necessarily have total nudity- it was just that the imagery was there to both shock and titillate that I didn't think was appealing in any way and not really educational. But I can only remember two such instances. They have seen lots of nudes- both statues and paintings and drawings. WE have lots of art books at home too and they can look through them anytime they want- and they do like to look through them on occasion. None are devoted to nude art since most of our books are museum collections or a genre of painting- like Impressionists.

 

Oh, and thanks for the education about brutalish architecture. I found out by looking at Google images that the military house I lived in when we lived in Sacramento is an example of this architecture. I actually liked it since we had a huge glass wall. Later we moved to Belgium and that house that we totally loved, with a much larger, two story, gigantic glass wall and marble floors, was also an example of it. Plus the Metro ceilings in DC which I also loved since I was a kid and the MEtro came in.

[Sparkle]

I don't censor, unless the work is particularly graphic, but sometimes the boys self-censor. My dd does not.

 

We have this page-a-day calendar from the Met. and when someone is particularly naked the boys have a tendency to skip that day.

 

Perhaps it is because they grew up in a hippie neighborhood and have seen enough nudity for a lifetime! :D

 

By the way, we love this calendar! It is a beautiful and simple (and inexpensive! It was $12) way to add picture study to the day. The presentation is elegant, and looks great in our home. We take turns changing the picture, and have learned so much. The kids are already begging for certain pages so they can hang them in their rooms. I highly recommend it! You can get them from Barnes and Noble and similar stores, but Amazon had a great price.

 

That calendar looks very nice! Thanks for the tip.

[Bluegoat]

Here is a very serious question about nude art. More applicable for those with young children and also for children with certain special needs, for lack of a better term. (And those who are not nudists.)

 

How does one communicate the idea that real life nudity is not something for public consumption, while looking at (some or all) artworks involving nudity and saying that that is okay? This could cut either way - children being puzzled by nude art (why don't they have their clothes on) OR children who see nothing wrong with public nudity and see art as reinforcing the idea that it's perfectly fine to have random people see one naked, which puts one at risk for inappropriate outcomes or abuse. I am not trying to be hysterical or anything. This is not a trick question; it's a real one. Grown men do not stand in the town square stark naked, and I, as an adult woman, have not been happy when I've come across naked men in public, who are usually trying to visually or physically assault someone by their exhibitionism.

 

I am not suggesting all naked art = porn or expressing an opinion about nudity in art. I personally think it's a complex issue. I think it is much easier, logically, to reject nudity in art AND public human nudity, and that is easy to communicate, but I really am curious, though, about how to communicate this subtle distinction to a child who, due to age or some other reason, does not "get it."

 

That's an interesting question.

 

One thing that comes to my mind is that public nudity is not necessarily always inappropriate. To understand why nudity in art is ok and porn not, or it is ok to be nude in a sauna but not on the street, means thinking about why the nudity is there.

 

It is probably even the same as asking why is it inappropriate to wear a bathing suit in the down-town but ok to do it at the beach.

 

Part of it really just is cultural norms, and to that extent it is a bit of an historical accident. What is ok in Timbuktu is no good in Katmandu. But observing those norms, as long as they are not innately immoral, is about respect. Respect for ourselves and others. Clothing is one way of defining privacy and intimacy, just like how close we stand to others, whether we greet by shaking hands or kissing, or whatever. When we knowingly go outside those boundries we may be doing it to shock other people, or to claim attention for ourselves, or for some sort of sexual reason, and those are all inappropriate.

 

In the case of art I think the boundaries are usually somewhat different than for real people, because it is abstract. But part of it is also convention - we are not shocking people (except perhaps some rather odd homeschoolers!) by having nudity in art. So we are therefore not transgressing any kind of public boundary.

 

Pornography on the other hand is designed to sexually titillate, so public pornography is crossing the boundary.

 

But the line between the two isn't always clear. There is from time to time controversy about whether a particular work of art with nudity and a sexual theme is actually pornographic, and i think sometimes it actually is. IIRC, Olympia was quite controversial when it came out and people thought it was pornographic, though no one really seems to feel that way now. People found the way she looked right at the viewer in what seemed like a personal way to be inappropriate, and it was apparently different from typical nudes before that.

 

I'm not sure how i would break that down for a young child!

[LucyStoner]

I don't think twice about it. it isn't a secret that women have breasts/vaginas or that men have penises. Not a secret, not a big deal.

 

What she said. Not a big deal. It's not pornography.

[nmoira]

How does one communicate the idea that real life nudity is not something for public consumption, while looking at (some or all) artworks involving nudity and saying that that is okay?

I don't say it's OK or not OK: I say we humans are funny creatures. What's considered appropriate in one part of the world, or one setting, or at one time of year may be considered entirely inappropriate in another time or place. Sometimes a group of people feels so uptight that they make laws about it or find other means of persuasion, and so in some places you could be arrested for being nude in public. In my home province of Ontario, both women and men can walk around topless (though women generally don't), but neither can go completely bottomless; and women aren't supposed to be topless in most places in North America. In some places, a woman is expected not to show any part of her body at all, while a woman in a bikini bottom or a man in a speedo might not stand out at our local beach. However, that same woman or man but would walking down the street would raise eyebrows.

 

It's something we learn, not something we are.

 

As for art, most of us are less uptight about nudity in art than about real life nudity.

[Slartibartfast]

It isn't a problem in our home. If someone sent me a marked up book after claiming it was in "new condition" I would insist on a full refund.

[ktgrok]

I understand it does not apply to you, and that you think my question was theoretical. It was not a theoretical question. I was also not asking about sexual behavior or assault. I am not the one strruggling to understand the difference. I was asking about explaining it to children who do not understand.

 

But if someone would like to have a conversation instead of saying it's not possible because European kids don't act that way, feel free to comment.

 

I think what the poster meant was she has never met, nor heard of, children that don't understand the difference between art and normal every day life. Neither have I, honestly. I mean, we don't make kids take baths in bathing suits so that they don't get confused about going naked at the beach...we get that some water situations are nude, and some require bathing suits. That seems a harder thing to understand than statues versus real people.

[ElizaG]

I don't think I'd keep a child from experiencing such buildings, but I don't think I would tend to endorse their philosophy of architecture.

I agree, but it seems to me that experiencing things in the outside world is different from putting pictures of them in our home, and especially on our children's shelves.

 

BTW, on the subject of early impressions -- Friedrich Froebel started out wanting to be an architect, and a significant number of modern artists and architects went to kindergartens that followed his method. Their lessons had a lot of emphasis on construction with geometric shapes, either plain or in primary colors. The children were encouraged to draw on graph paper, and sat at tables with grids on them.

 

Was Modernism Born in Toddler Toolboxes? (NY Times, April 10, 1997)

 

[ETA link to another article that goes into more detail, with illustrations]

 

This is pretty much the opposite extreme from Waldorf's emphasis on curvy lines and blurred edges. As with Steiner, though, Froebel seems to have based his method of education on some sort of esoteric spiritual concepts.

 

(Sorry this is OT. I've never come across any data on the long-term outcomes of kindergartens that emphasize nudist principles. Thank goodness. :tongue_smilie: ;))

[Kathryn]

I don't shield my children from nudity in art, nor as we go about our daily business (changing clothes, showering, etc.) dS6 is autistic and hasn't had any problem understanding when nudity is or is not appropriate and is developing a sense of modesty. DS2, on the other hand, routinely whips it out in public and shouts "TA-DA!" I think that's a 2yo thing though, and not a too-much-nudity-in-art-viewing thing.

[Lady Florida.]

I'm particularly interested in those of you with teenage sons. Do you attempt to avoid the works, dialogue about them, other?

 

How have you and your dc handled this?

 

 

 

I have an almost 15 year old son, and don't even consider avoiding or censoring. Art is beautiful. The human body is beautiful. He handles it just fine.

[Corraleno]

I understand it does not apply to you, and that you think my question was theoretical. It was not a theoretical question. I was also not asking about sexual behavior or assault. I am not the one strruggling to understand the difference. I was asking about explaining it to children who do not understand.

And my point was that if children cannot understand why it's OK for a Greek statue in a museum to be naked, but it's not OK for them to be naked in public, then the problem is not with nudity in art, but with the child's inability to understand cultural context. One could say the same thing about going to the beach — how can you make a child understand that swimsuits are OK at the beach but not in the library? How do you make a child understand that taking your clothes off at the doctor's office is OK, but taking your clothes off in Walmart isn't? For the vast majority of children, even quite young children, this is just not an issue. And if a child doesn't understand that sort of thing, then preventing them from seeing nude art will not solve the problem any more than preventing them from swimming or going to the doctor would.

 

But if someone would like to have a conversation instead of saying it's not possible because European kids don't act that way, feel free to comment.

That's not what I said. :) I was trying to point out that in cultures where nudity is much more natural and isn't nearly as sexualized as it is in the US, one needn't explain to children why it's "OK" to see nudes in art — because it wouldn't occur to them that it's not OK.

 

Jackie

[BigMamaBird]

I have no problem with nudity in art. I'm (not so) patiently waiting till my oldest is old enough to really enjoy going to the Detroit Institute of Arts. The human body is a beautiful thing.

[dirty ethel rackham]

It doesn't bother me and I've never avoided it or tried covering it up...

 

..unlike, say, these homeschoolers:

Naked Statue of Greek God Horrifies California Homeschoolers

 

Well, it's ATI, so what did you expect. If it had been a female nude, you know it would have had a dowdy denim skirt:).

[Ibbygirl]

[quote name=Mrs Mungo;4035739

 

 

Anyone offended by nudity should definitely not go to Italy' date=' especially Pompeii.

 

 

 

LOL :lol: :lol: I've heard about Pompeii. I have a pen pal from Italy and she is a decidedly metropolitan Italian woman and even she blushed when she went to Pompeii. :p hehehe

[Rene']

I do have a problem with nude art. I don't think of it in the same way as porn' date=' but I think it's wrong. My children do not view nude art. I would never censor a library book or one that does not belong to me, but I have done so for books that we own.[/quote']Can you elaborate as to why you think it's wrong?

While I agree that the human body is beautiful, I don't think God intends for us to gaze upon it outside of marriage. Coming from a biblical perspective, when Adam and Eve were aware of their nakedness after their sin God covered them. When Noah got drunk after the flood and was laying in his tent naked, Ham saw him and told his brothers. They walked backwards with a blanket and covered him.

[ktgrok]

LOL :lol: :lol: I've heard about Pompeii. I have a pen pal from Italy and she is a decidedly metropolitan Italian woman and even she blushed when she went to Pompeii. :p hehehe

 

I will admit, even I, who has NO issue with nude art normally, turned off a documentary on pompeii that was spending way too much time detailing the multi person tea parties in the art. My son was 10 at the time and that was a bit much.

[justamouse]

While I agree that the human body is beautiful' date=' I don't think God intends for us to gaze upon it outside of marriage. Coming from a biblical perspective, when Adam and Eve were aware of their nakedness after their sin God covered them. When Noah got drunk after the flood and was laying in his tent naked, Ham saw him and told his brothers. They walked backwards with a blanket and covered him.[/quote']

 

That's your biblical perspective. ;) I read the same bible, I interpret that as God foreshadowing another sacrifice that He gives us, the sacrifice of Christ, and us putting on Christ. If you notice, they are skin garments. So it has nothing to do with literal clothes.

[stripe]

I think what she's trying to express is that this -for lack of a better word, Puritanical- view of nudity is new. It actually does spring from the movement in Europe- but historically, it was nothing for a woman to show a full breast while nursing, or for people to bathe together-it was very natural, and still is.

...

This hypersexulaized view of the body is a very new, and American thing.

 

I wasn't asking about societal views of nudity. I was asking about explaining it to a child.

 

The only "other" culture is not European. There are different works and styles of art all over the world. Some cultures have a lot of animal art. Some have a lot of sculpture. Some have a lot of decorative objects. Some don't depict living creatures (clothed or nude). Not all cultures have people running around naked all the time, except Americans. I think people have been wearing clothes for more than the last 100 years or whatever. All the rich women did not nurse in public in Europe. Most of them didn't nurse at all. Nursing is scene as animalistic by some people, to be transcended. Let the wet nurse do it. And where was it in public that women would nurse? In the middle of a street, withhorse drawn carriages racing by? Many societies had or have a fair amount of sex segregation, inlcuding European ones. All the men going to smoke and drink after dinner while the ladies went to another room, for example. Where were the kids then? Busy being neither seen nor heard.

 

I think what the poster meant was she has never met, nor heard of, children that don't understand the difference between art and normal every day life. Neither have I, honestly. I mean, we don't make kids take baths in bathing suits so that they don't get confused about going naked at the beach...we get that some water situations are nude, and some require bathing suits. That seems a harder thing to understand than statues versus real people.

Well, I have, and I mentioned this included young children and children with special needs. So, yes, the issue may be cluelessness about situational behavior. Okay. .... I think it's kind of offensive to continue to insist that, because you've never seen something, that it doesn't exist, in other words, that I am asking a question with no merit. Even if you haven't met such a child, if it's such an obvious distinction, you'd think someone would be able to articulate it. I appreciate those who took the time to try.

 

This thread seems mostly to be a JAWM thread. Anyone who isn't gung ho on naked body parts is, we have been told, a prude, a Puritan, and/or an American, and certainly uncomfortable with their own body and/or sexuality. Except I know people who fit none of those situations. One can be comfortable with their own body and sexuality and not enjoy gazing at naked art. It is possible. I know such people. And it's just not really an interesting discussion if we're all patting each other on the back for being so open minded.

Edited June 23, 2012 by stripe

[justamouse]

I wasn't asking about societal views of nudity. I was asking about explaining it to a child.

 

The only "other" culture is not European. There are different works and styles of art all over the world. Some cultures have a lot of animal art. Some have a lot of sculpture. Some have a lot of decorative objects. Some don't depict living creatures (clothed or nude). Not all cultures have people running around naked all the time, except Americans. I think people have been wearing clothes for more than the last 100 years or whatever. All the rich women did not nurse in public in Europe. Most of them didn't nurse at all. Nursing is scene as animalistic by some people, to be transcended. Let the wet nurse do it.

 

 

Well, I have, and I mentioned this included young children and children with special needs. So, yes, the issue may be cluelessness about situational behavior. Okay. .... I think it's kind of offensive to continue to insist that, because you've never seen something, that it doesn't exist, in other words, that I am asking a question with no merit. Even if you haven't met such a child, if it's such an obvious distinction, you'd think someone would be able to articulate it. I appreciate those who took the time to try.

 

This thread seems mostly to be a JAWM thread. Anyone who isn't gung ho on naked body parts is, we have been told, a prude, a Puritan, and/or an American, and certainly uncomfortable with their own body and/or sexuality. Except I know people who fit none of those situations. One can be comfortable with their own body and sexuality and not enjoy gazing at naked art. It is possible. I know such people. And it's just not really an interesting discussion if we're all patting each other on the back for being so open minded.

 

I think you're getting pretty defensive about your POV and perhaps not reading the answers? NO ONE said your question was without merit, many of us tried to answer-in different ways so that we could explain our position. I never said you were a Puritan, or prude, I tried to explain the history/movement that brought us to this hypersexualized view of the human body.

[kitten18]

I wasn't asking about societal views of nudity. I was asking about explaining it to a child.

 

The only "other" culture is not European. There are different works and styles of art all over the world. Some cultures have a lot of animal art. Some have a lot of sculpture. Some have a lot of decorative objects. Some don't depict living creatures (clothed or nude). Not all cultures have people running around naked all the time, except Americans. I think people have been wearing clothes for more than the last 100 years or whatever. All the rich women did not nurse in public in Europe. Most of them didn't nurse at all. Nursing is scene as animalistic by some people, to be transcended. Let the wet nurse do it. And where was it in public that women would nurse? In the middle of a street, withhorse drawn carriages racing by? Many societies had or have a fair amount of sex segregation, inlcuding European ones. All the men going to smoke and drink after dinner while the ladies went to another room, for example. Where were the kids then? Busy being neither seen nor heard.

 

 

Well, I have, and I mentioned this included young children and children with special needs. So, yes, the issue may be cluelessness about situational behavior. Okay. .... I think it's kind of offensive to continue to insist that, because you've never seen something, that it doesn't exist, in other words, that I am asking a question with no merit. Even if you haven't met such a child, if it's such an obvious distinction, you'd think someone would be able to articulate it. I appreciate those who took the time to try.

 

This thread seems mostly to be a JAWM thread. Anyone who isn't gung ho on naked body parts is, we have been told, a prude, a Puritan, and/or an American, and certainly uncomfortable with their own body and/or sexuality. Except I know people who fit none of those situations. One can be comfortable with their own body and sexuality and not enjoy gazing at naked art. It is possible. I know such people. And it's just not really an interesting discussion if we're all patting each other on the back for being so open minded.

I have read all the posts in this thread and I guess I'm just dense because I have no idea what you're asking.

I guess if you have a child that you believe will start going naked because they are exposed to nudity in art, then you shouldn't expose them to the nudity???

If you have a 3 year old that strips down in the art museum because they see a naked statue, you put their clothes back on, try to explain, and move on.

:confused:

[nmoira]

Stripe, I detailed exactly what I told my kids, though we might be coming at it from opposite sides. Mine were never happy with the fact that there were places they had to wear clothing.

[KnitWit]

My dh was raised in a third world country with native men wearing nothing but gourds and women wearing only grass skirts. Those people only covered the parts of the body that they deemed s*xual in function.

 

He is a normal person who spends his days fully clothed. :)

[Corraleno]

I mentioned this included young children and children with special needs. So, yes, the issue may be cluelessness about situational behavior. Okay. .... I think it's kind of offensive to continue to insist that, because you've never seen something, that it doesn't exist, in other words, that I am asking a question with no merit.

NO ONE has said this. Those of us saying that we've never known any child who was unable to distinguish between art and real life are simply reinforcing the idea that this would indeed be a special needs issue. And, in that case, the inability to understand social context is the problem, not nude art.

 

Even if you haven't met such a child, if it's such an obvious distinction, you'd think someone would be able to articulate it.

The distinction is that while the human body is beautiful and natural and a work of art in it's own right, in our culture it's considered inappropriate for living humans to walk around naked in public. If a child cannot distinguish between living humans and works of art, then taking them to art museums may not be all that important in the larger scheme of things.

 

Jackie

[EKS]

No problem here.

[ktgrok]

 

The distinction is that while the human body is beautiful and natural and a work of art in it's own right, in our culture it's considered inappropriate for living humans to walk around naked in public. If a child cannot distinguish between living humans and works of art, then taking them to art museums may not be all that important in the larger scheme of things.

 

Jackie

 

I agree. We can't give you a blanket answer because this would be such an unusual situation to deal with that it would require a very specific solution I would imagine.

 

With kids that are not special needs I just would explain the same way I explain everything else. No, you can't wear your pajamas to school, pajamas are for bed. No, you can't wear your bathing suit to church, it isn't appropriate for church. No, you can't go naked at the grocery store, we wear clothes at the grocery store. Yes, that man is naked, but he is a statue, not a real person. Real people wear clothes at the park.

[brehon]

I wasn't asking about societal views of nudity. I was asking about explaining it to a child.

 

The only "other" culture is not European. There are different works and styles of art all over the world. Some cultures have a lot of animal art. Some have a lot of sculpture. Some have a lot of decorative objects. Some don't depict living creatures (clothed or nude). Not all cultures have people running around naked all the time, except Americans. I think people have been wearing clothes for more than the last 100 years or whatever. All the rich women did not nurse in public in Europe. Most of them didn't nurse at all. Nursing is scene as animalistic by some people, to be transcended. Let the wet nurse do it. And where was it in public that women would nurse? In the middle of a street, withhorse drawn carriages racing by? Many societies had or have a fair amount of sex segregation, inlcuding European ones. All the men going to smoke and drink after dinner while the ladies went to another room, for example. Where were the kids then? Busy being neither seen nor heard.

 

True. And we need to differentiate between eras in history (Medieval sensibilities were quite different than, say, Regency sensibilities), different social classes within a given era (i.e serf v. merchant v. noble classes in Medieval Europe, for instance), and even different countries...and this is just in Europe.

 

Well, I have, and I mentioned this included young children and children with special needs. So, yes, the issue may be cluelessness about situational behavior. Okay. .... I think it's kind of offensive to continue to insist that, because you've never seen something, that it doesn't exist, in other words, that I am asking a question with no merit. Even if you haven't met such a child, if it's such an obvious distinction, you'd think someone would be able to articulate it. I appreciate those who took the time to try.

 

This thread seems mostly to be a JAWM thread. Anyone who isn't gung ho on naked body parts is, we have been told, a prude, a Puritan, and/or an American, and certainly uncomfortable with their own body and/or sexuality. Except I know people who fit none of those situations. One can be comfortable with their own body and sexuality and not enjoy gazing at naked art. It is possible. I know such people. And it's just not really an interesting discussion if we're all patting each other on the back for being so open minded.

 

 

I'm really confused about what you're asking. Are you wondering how people explain to their children (with and w/o SN) that nudity in art is different than nudity in an inappropriate place in public? [i'm not being a smart @$$, either. I truly want to know if I've understood you.]

 

Assuming that I've understood you correctly - I explained to my kids why Michaelangelo's David (for instance) is different than running around naked in the store or something. I believe that context and intent is important and explain that in age/developmentally appropriate ways. They've all understood that even at young ages. I don't have kids w/special needs; so, I haven't dealt with that issue. I imagine if one knew or suspected that one's child(ren) would have an issue with seeing David or a Venus or something one would take any necessary precautions - including waiting for greater maturity or whatever accomodation might be needed for an SN child. I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong answer here. People do what they believe is best for their child(ren).

 

I really don't think anyone said that your question was without merit. I, too, have personally not had experience with a child who couldn't distinguish between art and real life (at least as far as nudity went). I don't think this is a JAWM thread as the OP didn't post her opinion; she asked a question.

 

And just as someone who isn't comfortable with or just doesn't like nudity in art (again, I'm assuming "great" art here) isn't "a prude, a Puritan, and/or an American, and certainly uncomfortable with their own body and/or sexuality", neither is someone who isn't bothered by nudity in art "gung ho on naked body parts". In fact, I distinctly remember another thread with almost the same question (years ago; might have been on the old boards) and the bulk of the expressed opinions were diametrically opposed to this thread - most people who posted did NOT like nudity in art, even "great art".

[Bluegoat]

All the rich women did not nurse in public in Europe. Most of them didn't nurse at all. Nursing is scene as animalistic by some people, to be transcended. Let the wet nurse do it. And where was it in public that women would nurse? In the middle of a street, withhorse drawn carriages racing by? Many societies had or have a fair amount of sex segregation, inlcuding European ones. All the men going to smoke and drink after dinner while the ladies went to another room, for example. Where were the kids then? Busy being neither seen nor heard.

 

 

I guess this is getting OT, but I hate this misconception. It's true the really wealthy used to have wet nurses, but nursing in public was common, even in the US, up until the first part of the 20th century. Including in mixed company. There is lots of artistic and later photographic evidence of this.

 

This for example, which I think is such a lovely painting, is called "Study for the Presbyterian Catechism" - it's set in a bible study type situation that seems to include men and women.

[Juniper]

I guess this is getting OT, but I hate this misconception. It's true the really wealthy used to have wet nurses, but nursing in public was common, even in the US, up until the first part of the 20th century. Including in mixed company. There is lots of artistic and later photographic evidence of this.

 

This for example, which I think is such a lovely painting, is called "Study for the Presbyterian Catechism" - it's set in a bible study type situation that seems to include men and women.

That painting brings to mind these. A little older, but to the point. ;)

What is interesting to me is you would find these icons in Monasteries.

And a blog post giving some of the historical info. http://iconreader.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/milk-giver-icon-not-scandalized-by-the-incarnation/

Edited June 23, 2012 by Juniper

[HSMom2One]

I think there is a very big difference between nudity and being naked. Nudity in classical art is very natural. There nothing to hide or be ashamed of with nudity because, as others have said, our bodies are miraculous creations and very much a part of life. Now being naked is different because it's about being exposed, and there is both vulnerability and shame in that type of view of the human body. I am not in favor of any type of erotic art in public places, and some of the more modern contemporary works of art present the body in more of a naked view that seems dirty. This, to me, is in very poor taste and I would definitely shield my kids from that.

 

Until I was a student in art school (I have a Bach. of Fine Arts in Art with a concentration in painting), I had never really thought of all this before. As an adult, and as a Christian I had to ponder over it as I studied, but ultimately in the end I walked away with no issues of concern about nudity in classical art. Art is best defined as a definition of what is going on within a particular culture, so the nudity is all part of better understanding that age and time. When I consider the views of many conservative people today in our country that don't see it this way, I think it's just amazing how the Victorian era lingers on in our American culture. I sure wish people would lighten up about it.

 

As an art teacher in a Christian school I have to remain neutral on the subject of nudity. In the history of our school, this was at one time a very big issue. So in order to avoid any possible problems from upset parents, I just don't go there. I want parents to deal with nudity in art with their own children in the way they feel is best. Because of this I have been known to slip black paper sleeves over pages of some books I'm showing to the class in order to keep my students from noticing a particular painting on the opposite side of the book. I also keep some of our books on higher shelves than the others so that the younger boys especially don't grab them and gather over in the corner to giggle and point. This is all out of deference to those families that feel strongly about it, not because I have an issue with it. Our art history teacher at the high school level does have to deal with the subject, but I'm not sure how she deals with it. (I'm going to have to ask her, now that you mention it.)

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

Edited June 23, 2012 by HSMom2One

[HSMom2One]

I guess this is getting OT, but I hate this misconception. It's true the really wealthy used to have wet nurses, but nursing in public was common, even in the US, up until the first part of the 20th century. Including in mixed company. There is lots of artistic and later photographic evidence of this.

 

This for example, which I think is such a lovely painting, is called "Study for the Presbyterian Catechism" - it's set in a bible study type situation that seems to include men and women.

 

I have never seen this painting until now, and I have to say that I absolutely love it! As a mother and grandmother as well as an artist, I think it's a wonderful picture of life.

 

Thank you for sharing it!

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

[Mrs Mungo]

Specific objects might include some types of scary masks, wildly disproportionate figures, things to do with human sacrifice, and items made from skulls and other human body parts. We have a few history books that seem to go out of their way to include these pictures -- I guess it's for the "wow factor." Maybe that would be helpful with a 13 year old boy who's a reluctant reader, but it's not something I want my little ones (who love to sit and flip through books) looking at on a regular basis. Young children have naturally contemplative minds, and I'd rather they fill them with images that are more in keeping with our family's sense of human dignity and spiritual meaning.

 

Are you only talking about books in your home here? Or are you talking about avoiding museums with these types of artifacts? Just curious.

 

I wasn't asking about societal views of nudity. I was asking about explaining it to a child.

 

How do you explain that it is okay to poop in a toilet and not in a regular chair?

 

We were once at the zoo when one of my dds (who was 3 at the time) unsnapped her shirt. I snapped it back up, told her it was inappropriate for the setting. She said, "well it is hot and that manover there isn't wearing a shirt!" I said, "well, he is being inappropriate too!" he put his shirt back on. ;)

 

All the rich women did not nurse in public in Europe. Most of them didn't nurse at all. Nursing is scene as animalistic by some people, to be transcended. Let the wet nurse do it.

 

When? There are tombs in ancient Rome praising the moms who chose to nurse their own babies instead of handing them over to a wet nurse. There are hundreds of years worth of historical writings and art that disprove your theory.

[Dory]

I guess this is getting OT, but I hate this misconception. It's true the really wealthy used to have wet nurses, but nursing in public was common, even in the US, up until the first part of the 20th century. Including in mixed company. There is lots of artistic and later photographic evidence of this.

 

This for example, which I think is such a lovely painting, is called "Study for the Presbyterian Catechism" - it's set in a bible study type situation that seems to include men and women.

 

That is a beautiful picture. A very wholesome view of a family. I had never seen that one before.

[LucyStoner]

In fact, I was so mad once when I purchased an encyclopedia from a homeschooler online and every partially nude person was wearing an outfit drawn in with magic marker. I guess she didn't consider that as marks because she listed the item like new. What a ding dong.

 

Holy cow, that is just insane. It's those sorts of people who give homeschoolers a reputation for being overly sheltered. I am trying to imagine learning art history with all the pictures censored with little magic marker outfits. Why bother teaching the subject?

[swimmermom3]

Lots of art books here with beautiful, big pictures and plenty of National Geographics. My kids have been looking at both since they were in kindergarten. It might have been a bit later for National Geographic. I taught Art Literacy in their private and public schools for nine years. They are very used to the art books. My youngest also just watched watched the Zefiro Romeo and Juliet. At 14, he managed not to snicker.

 

We aren't heathens. I don't allow cleavage or sleeveless shirts with armpit hair at the dinner table.:D

[ElizaG]

Are you only talking about books in your home here? Or are you talking about avoiding museums with these types of artifacts? Just curious.

Again, this isn't an all or nothing thing. It would depend on the ages of the children, and the overall nature and balance of things in the displays. There are some local specialty museums that we wouldn't take our younger ones to (say 5 or 6 and under). And some visiting exhibits and galleries at the large museums that we would avoid until closer to high school age.

 

This goes for some other types of subject matter as well. The ones I mentioned were just a few examples.

[HSMom2One]

Again, this isn't an all or nothing thing. It would depend on the ages of the children, and the overall nature and balance of things in the displays. There are some local specialty museums that we wouldn't take our younger ones to (say 5 or 6 and under). And some visiting exhibits and galleries at the large museums that we would avoid until closer to high school age.

 

This goes for some other types of subject matter as well. The ones I mentioned were just a few examples.

 

Well stated. This is how I gauge things too.

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

[annandatje]

Holy cow, that is just insane. It's those sorts of people who give homeschoolers a reputation for being overly sheltered. I am trying to imagine learning art history with all the pictures censored with little magic marker outfits. Why bother teaching the subject?

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

You know how people are sometimes fooled by Onion stories and link them with serious comments expressing outrage?

 

I briefly glanced at original poster's link and just assumed that it was some sort of satire site. Just after I read a few posts on the thread did I realize it was a genuine happening.

 

These are the kinds of things that make me embarrassed to say I am a homeschooler.

[MFG]

I guess this is getting OT, but I hate this misconception. It's true the really wealthy used to have wet nurses, but nursing in public was common, even in the US, up until the first part of the 20th century. Including in mixed company. There is lots of artistic and later photographic evidence of this.

 

This for example, which I think is such a lovely painting, is called "Study for the Presbyterian Catechism" - it's set in a bible study type situation that seems to include men and women.

Yes, this is part of a larger work. This was not a simple family gathering but a meeting of the church. Mom and Dad watch anxiously, younger children all around, as older daughter publicly recites her catechism. A young man, obviously interested in older daughter, also looks on. Meanwhile, and older encourager in the front row gives her reminders. It is a wonderful scene.

 

http://americancovenanter89.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/presbyterian-catechising-1847.jpg

[Spock]

 

Well, I have, and I mentioned this included young children and children with special needs. So, yes, the issue may be cluelessness about situational behavior. Okay. .... I think it's kind of offensive to continue to insist that, because you've never seen something, that it doesn't exist, in other words, that I am asking a question with no merit. Even if you haven't met such a child, if it's such an obvious distinction, you'd think someone would be able to articulate it. I appreciate those who took the time to try.

 

 

My younger two might be the kind of child you are thinking about. When they were younger, they fixated on the genitals of nude paintings to the point of being unable to see any other part of the picture. I finally put removable color dot stickers over all exposed genitals/breasts in our Story of Painting book. (I was able to remove them a year or two ago.)

 

We still don't choose nudes for our picture study. I just don't really want a nude painting (or computer print-out of a painting) on my wall for two weeks in a row for them to look at and study daily. I have no objection to the nude paintings being in the book, and my children often flip through it looking at paintings, including nudes. When Michelangelo was our artist for 12 weeks, I chose 6 statues that were dressed to put on the wall one at a time. It was actually quite difficult to find 6 works by Michelangelo that were not nudes--and one of the statues we chose actually did have a nude infant in it, which my son pointed out.

 

I would think that if a child was the sort that had difficulty understanding the need for clothes in the first place (and I HAVE known many toddlers/preschoolers and special needs children who try to remove their clothing in public over and over), that the parent would be aware of this and not choose to expose this particular child to nude art until some time after that problem had been resolved.

[Momma_Bear]

I don't think twice about it. it isn't a secret that women have breasts/vaginas or that men have penises. Not a secret, not a big deal.

:iagree: