Totally random question: nude works of art?

[TammyS]

We have no problem with it as I previously mentioned.

 

But, I was a bit surprised to walk around the corner at the Portland Art Museum to be greeted with a full size, absolutely Life Like nude man laying down. He is on a slab, and is just at eye level. He is so beautiful, the artistry- phenominal. It is the life-likeness that catches you off guard, like a real person is actually laying there. (This is Portland, so you never really know LOL).

 

Whenever we find him (his location changes over time in the museum) he usually gets a comment or two. We try to focus on the finely painted veins on his feet or the odd hair....but his bits, well they follow you around the room like the Mona Lisa's eyes. LOL

 

"Dying Gaul" John De Andrea is the artist.

 

I guess I'd come down somewhat outside of the typical. I don't think all nude art is pornographic...but it isn't modest, either. And I think that some of our children being uncomfortable with it might be a sign of the fact that it isn't modest. I don't think the human body is ugly and sinful, but that doesn't mean it's public, either, IMO. And while I do understand what some of the great artists were going for, I'm not sure that it was wise (I'm also not sure that it was unwise...a sincere level of uncertainty). And even where it is great art, I'm not sure of the wisdom of exposure for children, especially "studied" exposure with long lengths of time looking at it and talking about it.

 

Would I have dressed the statue like those people in CA did? No. But if my children, especially at a "middle age" where they are so tender about their sexuality and modesty, were with me, I'd probably make a point of walking by it without drawing any more attention to it that necessary.

 

I don't cover the nudes in our art books, either. But I don't encourage my children to linger over them. And if they feel uncomfortable I would not suggest to them that those feelings were in the wrong. I think those feelings are something that God has given us.

 

And I would definitely not visit the art museum in Portland with the statue linked above. Sorry. I don't find it to be art. And I think they know it's not art, because they keep moving it around so that it can't be avoided. The realism is provocative, even if the pose is not. And the moving it around to make sure that as many people stumble upon it as possible is even more provocative.

 

I'm also uncomfortable with nudity in art because I really can't figure out who is supposed to determine where art ends and porn begins. I'm not saying that all nude art is porn. Definitely not. But an awful lot is. And more everyday. I will not allow my children to look, unsupervised, at art books in the book store, because so many of the nudes now are not merely nude, and not even merely provocative, but even debasing to the human form. But it's all "art". At least, the book is labeled as art, the author calls himself an artist, and the bookstore has it in the section labeled "Art Books".

 

Sorry for this longish post. Largely thinking it out as I write, what I have been half-thinking without articulation for a while.

[ElizaG]

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.

This seems to me to be an oversimplification. Were the Byzantines "puritans" or "hypersexualized?" How about Orthodox Jews? I doubt very much that observant Jewish homeschoolers are into taking their children to look at nude paintings and sculptures.

 

Western Christian culture has always had a tension between Jewish and pagan influences. Even having icons was controversial during some periods. And as I understand it, there wasn't a lot of nudity in religious art until the Renaissance, and much of the art of this era was sponsored by popes and public figures who were notoriously corrupt. Many of the artists were unscrupulous characters as well (e.g., Fra Filippo Lippi abducted a young nun from a convent and used her for his model, as well as for other purposes :glare:). As part of the extensive reforms following the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church decided to paint clothing on some of Michelangelo's figures. Some later popes had even more clothing added. During the recent restoration, they decided to remove some of the more recent pants, but left the earliest ones on. (Maybe they should have a pants-meter outside the Vatican. ;))

 

All this to say that I don't think Christians should be quick to judge or label sensibilities that are more [traditional/Patristic/Eastern/Hebrew/whatever] than their own. It's a complex issue. Here's a page with some substantial quotations from John Paul II:

 

Pornography vs. the Nude in Art: The Catholic-Christian Perspective

 

The blog author's mention of the "veiling effect" of the medium itself is also interesting. That could help explain why many people (whatever their religious background) would be more comfortable with, say, a charcoal drawing of a nude figure, than with the Portland sculpture linked to above.

[TammyS]

 

All this to say that I don't think Christians should be quick to judge or label sensibilities that are more [traditional/Patristic/Eastern/Hebrew/whatever] than their own.

 

It's a complex issue. Here's a page with some substantial quotations from John Paul II:

 

Pornography vs. the Nude in Art: The Catholic-Christian Perspective

 

The blog author's mention of the "veiling effect" of the medium itself is also interesting. That could help explain why many people (whatever their religious background) would be more comfortable with, say, a charcoal drawing of a nude figure, than with the Portland sculpture linked to above.

 

:iagree::hurray: Thank you. I have been rather uncomfortable with the name calling of some persons with different sensibilities (ding dong, embarrassment to homeschoolers). I am also grateful for the link. I will review it carefully. It may help me to resolve some of my own unclear feelings about this issue.

[justamouse]

This seems to me to be an oversimplification. Were the Byzantines "puritans" or "hypersexualized?" How about Orthodox Jews? I doubt very much that observant Jewish homeschoolers are into taking their children to look at nude paintings and sculptures.

 

Western Christian culture has always had a tension between Jewish and pagan influences. Even having icons was controversial during some periods. And as I understand it, there wasn't a lot of nudity in religious art until the Renaissance, and much of the art of this era was sponsored by popes and public figures who were notoriously corrupt. Many of the artists were unscrupulous characters as well (e.g., Fra Filippo Lippi abducted a young nun from a convent and used her for his model, as well as for other purposes :glare:). As part of the extensive reforms following the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church decided to paint clothing on some of Michelangelo's figures. Some later popes had even more clothing added. During the recent restoration, they decided to remove some of the more recent pants, but left the earliest ones on. (Maybe they should have a pants-meter outside the Vatican. ;))

 

All this to say that I don't think Christians should be quick to judge or label sensibilities that are more [traditional/Patristic/Eastern/Hebrew/whatever] than their own. It's a complex issue. Here's a page with some substantial quotations from John Paul II:

 

Pornography vs. the Nude in Art: The Catholic-Christian Perspective

 

The blog author's mention of the "veiling effect" of the medium itself is also interesting. That could help explain why many people (whatever their religious background) would be more comfortable with, say, a charcoal drawing of a nude figure, than with the Portland sculpture linked to above.

 

That is true, that they tend toward modesty, but they also seem to have a more balanced view of sex and the human body.

 

I dress modestly, as so my children, but I'm not going to go put pants on a nude statue. So I couldn't describe the movement as more modest-because modest people I know, myself included, do think nude art can be glorious. I chose Puritanical because with them seemed to come the overarching teaching of sex is only for procreation, bodies are dirty and to be ashamed of and most definitely not to be drawn or praised in art.

 

While I fully agree with JPs writings on this-totally understand and see the nuances- but I also say that this over correction -which I see extrapolated as hypersexualization--is still rampant.

[justamouse]

We have no problem with it as I previously mentioned.

 

But, I was a bit surprised to walk around the corner at the Portland Art Museum to be greeted with a full size, absolutely Life Like nude man laying down. He is on a slab, and is just at eye level. He is so beautiful, the artistry- phenominal. It is the life-likeness that catches you off guard, like a real person is actually laying there. (This is Portland, so you never really know LOL).

 

Whenever we find him (his location changes over time in the museum) he usually gets a comment or two. We try to focus on the finely painted veins on his feet or the odd hair....but his bits, well they follow you around the room like the Mona Lisa's eyes. LOL

 

"Dying Gaul" John De Andrea is the artist.

 

This is a current artists reinterpretation of The Dying Gaul

 

The statue depicts a dying Celt with remarkable realism, particularly in the face, and may have been painted.[2] He is represented as a Gallic warrior with a typically Gallic hairstyle and moustache. The figure is nude save for a neck torc. He lies on his fallen shield while his sword and other objects lie beside him.

 

I was a bit confused when I read the title and clicked on your link!

[justamouse]

I'm also uncomfortable with nudity in art because I really can't figure out who is supposed to determine where art ends and porn begins. I'm not saying that all nude art is porn. Definitely not. But an awful lot is. And more everyday. I will not allow my children to look, unsupervised, at art books in the book store, because so many of the nudes now are not merely nude, and not even merely provocative, but even debasing to the human form. But it's all "art". At least, the book is labeled as art, the author calls himself an artist, and the bookstore has it in the section labeled "Art Books".

 

Sorry for this longish post. Largely thinking it out as I write, what I have been half-thinking without articulation for a while.

 

That is true, too, and I would draw the same lines as you, and why we veer toward the classical works. But it's still nude. I wouldn't think twice about my kids looking at Mary Cassat's Reclining Nude. Jacob Zuma's nude painting? (Don't google it) is not art. Sorry. So much modern stuff is just gross.

 

So yes, there is a need for discernment, but it doesn't mean that all nude art is porn.

[mommaduck]

If you make a big deal out of it and/or sexualize it, then that is how it will be for your kids. If you treat it merely as a work of art, discuss it as a work of art, act normal about it, then they will also. The same goes for breastfeeding, life and death, etc. Your actions and responses are what the child will look towards, in general, to see how they should treat something.

 

I have modest children (we'll exempt the four year old from that, at the moment). They don't blink even if a woman pulls out her entire breast at the store to nurse her toddler (yes, it's happened). They don't remember the multiple prosthetic limbs they have walked past, even though they smiled and said hello to the person. They aren't bothered one bit when we see someone with CP in a wheelchair (we used to have a couple of friends with CP when the olders were little; one had a great time explaining his chair to them). They aren't bothered walking through any room in the art museums and they have been in the one in St. Louis MANY times and the one in Philly before. They've seen beautiful nudes in art books that I intentionally have left on shelves on their level or handed to them when "bored". All the science, family health, child birthing, and biology books have been kept at their level, just as my folks kept them in my reach and never forbade my looking through them (with the exception of one childbirth book that I put up when my oldest reminded me that there was a page on positions while pregnant in it with drawings...ooops, glad he caught it and told me, and he acted very adult about it by simply saying that there was something in there the youngers should NOT be seeing).

 

Just be normal about it. Explain the importance of the human form, why artists have focused on it, how many artists have also been physicians and this is how medical doctors learn and how various artists have learned to paint from anatomy outward to clothing, even starting with bone and muscular structure. Art and medicine interweave so much. Also, look at what is, and has been, considered a normal and healthy form (compared to current media). How big (muscular) men would sometimes get due to forms of exercise they do not currently get in normal day to day. How women's bodies were valued, almost moreso, for their natural curves and extra flesh, usually brought on by motherhood and/or the duties and foods of their eras. There is so much that can be taught from observing art alongside history...even nudes. Give them that appreciation. It does not mean they will become immodest or immoral. They will learn context and context is everything. They will also learn reality of various eras.

 

Now, sexualized nudes, those I would avoid. You find those in more modern works, though there are still artists that do not sexualize.

[mommaduck]

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']

If it was never gazed upon outside of marriage, doctors would not have had medical books and we wouldn't have doctors.

[mommaduck]

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:).

*snort* Poor Poseidon; he looks ridiculous! Better nude than caught with a polo and your pants down!

[ElizaG]

Now, sexualized nudes, those I would avoid. You find those in more modern works, though there are still artists that do not sexualize.

There were many eroticized nudes in the Renaissance and Classical eras as well, though.

 

Sometimes, in hindsight, it seems obvious to us which category a work falls into. Other times, there's a grey area.

 

Art historians find it difficult to say how these paintings were received at the time -- see e.g. here and here.

[MusicMama]

No, we don't have a problem with it. I do remember though, at the Baptist college I attended, there were posters advertising the upcoming summer trip to Italy and Greece. The Statue of David was CENSORED. I couldn't believe it! It makes no sense. I guess nudity is only appropriate while in it's original, and surround by hundreds of other nude works of art??? "And now, kids, you get to see what is really under that black square." Geez :chillpill:

[MusicMama]

If it was never gazed upon outside of marriage, doctors would not have had medical books and we wouldn't have doctors.

 

:iagree:

 

And I would have delivered my kids alone in the hospital room with my husband, 'cause that's how I roll.

[mommaduck]

There were many eroticized nudes in the Renaissance and Classical eras as well, though.

 

Sometimes, in hindsight, it seems obvious to us which category a work falls into. Other times, there's a grey area.

 

Art historians find it difficult to say how these paintings were received at the time -- see e.g. here and here.

Yes, there was. We don't look for them, but if they are amoungst a collection we don't make an issue of it. Make an issue of it and then you've just brought it to their attention and in an even more negative way. Don't like it, keep walking and distract.

[ElizaG]

No, we don't have a problem with it. I do remember though, at the Baptist college I attended, there were posters advertising the upcoming summer trip to Italy and Greece. The Statue of David was CENSORED. I couldn't believe it! It makes no sense. I guess nudity is only appropriate while in it's original, and surround by hundreds of other nude works of art???

It doesn't make sense to me to include a picture of the sculpture and then black it out, but I do think there's a qualitative difference between viewing the 17 foot tall, three-dimensional marble work of art in context, and looking at a little two-dimensional image produced in mass quantities to be stuck on the wall. The former has an undeniable spiritual quality. Everything about it is meant to inspire awe and reverence. The latter seems to be veering somewhat into the territory of turning the David into a commodity -- an advertising device, or icon of mass culture. This doesn't necessarily make it obscene, but it does perhaps show a lack of respect for human dignity. Sort of like turning "Fur Elise" into a tune that plays when you open a greeting card. But with the added factor of the naked human body.

 

I feel similarly (though much more so) about the pictures of starving babies that have started popping up frequently in banner ads on some web sites. Not that they're naked. But I find them somewhat exploitative -- both of the children portrayed, and of the viewer -- and I believe they're going to end up having the effect of desensitizing people to human suffering. Little emaciated baby from Colombia... Jimmy Wales from Wikipedia... yep, seen that before. Click, click, click.

[Rene']

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. ;)

Yes, this is true. We each must hold to our own understanding of right and wrong.

 

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.

The bible does not make the connection between God clothing Adam and Eve and us putting on Christ, so I don't either.

 

If you notice, they are skin garments. So it has nothing to do with literal clothes.

:confused: So only fabric garments are literal clothes in your mind?

 

In your post you did not comment about Ham. I'd like your thoughts about that situation.

[Rene']

If it was never gazed upon outside of marriage, doctors would not have had medical books and we wouldn't have doctors.

I am capable of holding to the view that nude art is wrong without getting silly about it and throwing common sense out the window.

In the bible there are midwives, and priests were able to examine people. Obviously there is a difference between nudity for medical purposes and nudity just for the sake of art.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Rene'

[justamouse]

I am capable of holding to the view that nude art is wrong without getting silly about it and throwing common sense out the window.

In the bible there are midwives' date=' and priests were able to examine people. Obviously there is a difference between nudity for medical purposes and nudity just for the sake of art.[/quote']

 

So if we disagree with you, we're throwing common sense out of the window. OK, I guess the discussion stops there.

[justamouse]

Yes' date=' this is true. We each must hold to our own understanding of right and wrong.

 

 

The bible does not make the connection between God clothing Adam and Eve and us putting on Christ, so I don't either.

 

 

:confused: So only fabric garments are literal clothes in your mind?

 

In your post you did not comment about Ham. I'd like your thoughts about that situation.[/quote']

 

My church's interpretation is that Genesis is not literal-it's a story about God's relationship to man. There's lots of things the bible doesn't make comment on, and I don't hold to Sola Scriptura.

[mommaduck]

I am capable of holding to the view that nude art is wrong without getting silly about it and throwing common sense out the window.

In the bible there are midwives' date=' and priests were able to examine people. Obviously there is a difference between nudity for medical purposes and nudity just for the sake of art.[/quote']

Apparently you are not aware that the same artists that draw and paint for medical texts learn by using nude art in various contexts. They don't just draw dead bodies. They learn with models in various poses and positions. This has been done throughout many centuries. The same physicians in previous centuries were the same artists of nude art. The two used to intertwine so much, that one was practice and offered understanding of the other.

[Mrs Mungo]

Art throughout the ages, including *plenty* of nude art in churches indicates that a prohibition against all nudity due to a "Biblical world view" has not be held to. This is a *new* idea about what the Bible says. That is fine for you, but you can hardly pretend that it is a universal idea held by upright Christians.

[Rene']

If it was never gazed upon outside of marriage, doctors would not have had medical books and we wouldn't have doctors.

I am capable of holding to the view that nude art is wrong without getting silly about it and throwing common sense out the window.

In the bible there are midwives' date=' and priests were able to examine people. Obviously there is a difference between nudity for medical purposes and nudity just for the sake of art.[/quote']

So if we disagree with you, we're throwing common sense out of the window. OK, I guess the discussion stops there.

 

That isn't what I said or meant.

 

To bring doctors and medical illustrations into the mix is really comparing apples and oranges. I used the phrase "gaze upon" for a reason. I was referring to admiring nudity for it's beauty and as a means to praise God for His creation of the human body. I have no problem praising God for His creation of my husband's body, but I wouldn't want a statue made of him for others to have that same opportunity.

 

If I include doctors and medicine in my view that nudity outside of marriage is wrong that would be silly, and would be throwing common sense out of the window.

 

My church's interpretation is that Genesis is not literal-it's a story about God's relationship to man. There's lots of things the bible doesn't make comment on, and I don't hold to Sola Scriptura.

 

That's fine. I understand that many do not hold to a literal interpretation of scripture and that many are not Sola Scriptura. I knew when I posted that many many Christians, some posting in this thread, don't have a problem with nude art. But the OP asked for opinions and so I gave mine and was then asked to explain my opinion. :001_smile:

Edited June 24, 2012 by Rene'

[Rene']

Art throughout the ages, including *plenty* of nude art in churches indicates that a prohibition against all nudity due to a "Biblical world view" has not be held to. This is a *new* idea about what the Bible says. That is fine for you, but you can hardly pretend that it is a universal idea held by upright Christians.

I didn't. But honestly, I don't find the presence of nude art in churches through the ages to be an indication that it's fine with God.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Rene'

[jujsky]

I've always had them view nude works of art if they came up and just didn't make a big deal about it. I also let my kids watch National Geographic, even when they show indigenous people who are naked or mostly naked. Again, I don't make a big deal about it. I've taught my kids to respect their bodies and the bodies of others, but beyond that we don't really discuss it or make an issue out of it. They do refer to the David as "Naked David" and giggle about it. I figure if I don't make a bid deal about it and don't make them feel like it's something to be ashamed of or embarrassed by, they won't be.

[mommaduck]

That isn't what I said or meant.

 

To bring doctors and medical illustrations into the mix is really comparing apples and oranges. I used the phrase "gaze upon" for a reason. I was referring to admiring nudity for it's beauty and as a means to praise God for His creation of the human body. I have no problem praising God for His creation of my husband's body' date=' but I wouldn't want a statue made of him for others to have that same opportunity.

 

If I include doctors and medicine in my view that nudity outside of marriage is wrong that would be silly, and would be throwing common sense out of the window.

 

 

 

That's fine. I understand that many do not hold to a literal interpretation of scripture and that many are not Sola Scriptura. I knew when I posted that many many Christians, some posting in this thread, don't have a problem with nude art. But the OP asked for opinions and so I gave mine and was then asked to explain my opinion. :001_smile:[/quote']

It's not apples and oranges as explained in my post after the one you quoted. If by "gazed upon" you mean lustfully, then, yes, it's wrong. If by gazed upon one means "studied", then, no, it's not wrong.

[PeacefulChaos]

I agree with Rene' on the point of art vs medical purposes being apples and oranges. I don't see them the same at all. :)

[mommaduck]

I agree with Rene' on the point of art vs medical purposes being apples and oranges. I don't see them the same at all. :)

Okay, a bit clearer then: We wouldn't have one if it wasn't for the other. Not that we couldn't have, but rather we wouldn't have. It's simply a fact of history.

[Mrs Mungo]

I didn't. But honestly' date=' I don't find the presence of nude art in churches through the ages to be an indication that it's fine with God.[/quote']

 

My claim was that as a "Biblical worldview," it is a new one. I don't believe that any one of us can really claim to know the mind of God. Do you?

 

Some of the works that you can see are truly awe-inspiring. They are beautiful testaments to God's creation. In others, the nudity is incidental, part of the times, not meant to be titillating. I think they are beautiful. They have moved me deeply in some cases. I think they add great value to the world.

[Dory]

I didn't. But honestly' date=' I don't find the presence of nude art in churches through the ages to be an indication that it's fine with God.[/quote']

:iagree: I think that is almost like my kids saying 'well so and so did it so why can't I". I'm not completely sure of my stand on nudity in art at this point, but this discussion has definitely made it a hot topic between my and my hubby. I think that's a good thing, it's not something we have had to discuss before and it would be healthy for us to know where we stand before we are facing it.

[Dory]

It's not apples and oranges as explained in my post after the one you quoted. If by "gazed upon" you mean lustfully, then, yes, it's wrong. If by gazed upon one means "studied", then, no, it's not wrong.

 

I would definitely have an issue with someone studying my husband's body unless is was a doctor and he was doing it for my husbands health. There is a difference between someone else gazing upon my husband and a doctor examining my husband. If I would not be ok with some random woman coming over and looking over my husbands naked body, than I wouldn't make a statue of my husband for her to look at either. If I am not comfortable with someone doing that with my husband, than perhaps it wouldn't be right to do it with statues of other men either.

[nmoira]

 

If I would not be ok with some random woman coming over and looking over my husbands naked body, than I wouldn't make a statue of my husband for her to look at either. If I am not comfortable with someone doing that with my husband, than perhaps it wouldn't be right to do it with statues of other men either.

But if I am comfortable with someone doing that to a statue of my husband (and I would be), does that mean we're at a moral impasse? Does it only come down to what "feels" right? I guess I'm asking: Is it wrong, or is it merely personal to you?

[Dory]

But if I am comfortable with someone doing that to a statue of my husband (and I would be), does that mean we're at a moral impasse? Does it only come down to what "feels" right? I guess I'm asking: Is it wrong, or is it merely personal to you?

 

I think we would have come to an impasse. Not because what I 'feel' is different, but because I do take scripture literally, and you do not so my beliefs are going to be different than yours. Adam and Eve felt shame. Noah has already been mentioned. And I am really starting to wonder about why looking at a naked statue is so different from looking at a naked person. Art is for pleasure, from how I'm seeing I don't know if it would really be right for me to teach my kids that it is ok to gaze at naked bodies for pleasure. We can understand history without looking at nudity, it isn't really necessary.

But then, if we were getting into matters of health, or the furtherance of understanding something of depth, I'm just not sure then. So in the end, at this point, in the study of art, I would say no full body nudity in this home (nursing babies is just normal and breast aren't about s*x anyway). When my kids are hitting senior high and are intersted in pursuing specific fields, well maybe I'll have to revisit this one.

I am not completely against it all, but I am not comfortable with just saying it's ok, and I guess if I'm not comfortable with it, then I can't really in good conscience allow it.

I'm at an impasse with myself :tongue_smilie:

[mommaduck]

I would definitely have an issue with someone studying my husband's body unless is was a doctor and he was doing it for my husbands health. There is a difference between someone else gazing upon my husband and a doctor examining my husband. If I would not be ok with some random woman coming over and looking over my husbands naked body, than I wouldn't make a statue of my husband for her to look at either. If I am not comfortable with someone doing that with my husband, than perhaps it wouldn't be right to do it with statues of other men either.

Well, as long as your husband isn't signing up to model for an artist or an art class, I guess you don't have to worry ;) And as long as you stay out of said classes, you won't have to worry there either. In such a quandry, we won't be looking for your name being accredited to any artworks dealing with the human anatomy, even medically speaking.

[Mrs Mungo]

And who is so barbarous as not to understand that the foot of a man is nobler than his shoe, and his skin nobler than that of the sheep with which he is clothed, and not to be able to estimate the worth and degree of each thing accordingly? - Michelangelo Buonarroti

 

 

God looked at his creation and saw that it was good. There is nothing amiss in any part of the human body. - Sister Wendy Beckett

[ma23peas]

God created us in perfect form...nothing aversed to seeing Master's reflect that creation...but I do not see as much 'art' in contemporary nudes...they seem to be more about voyeurism than respect for the human form...some renaissance paintings can be provocative...I do not encourage those...more about the intent behind the art.

[Dory]

And who is so barbarous as not to understand that the foot of a man is nobler than his shoe, and his skin nobler than that of the sheep with which he is clothed, and not to be able to estimate the worth and degree of each thing accordingly? - Michelangelo Buonarroti

 

 

God looked at his creation and saw that it was good. There is nothing amiss in any part of the human body. - Sister Wendy Beckett

 

Indeed!! I agree! I just am not so sure that it's meant to be shared with everyone.

[mommaduck]

Art is for pleasure, from how I'm seeing I don't know if it would really be right for me to teach my kids that it is ok to gaze at naked bodies for pleasure. We can understand history without looking at nudity, it isn't really necessary.

 

And see, this is where we disagree. Art is NOT just for pleasure. Many times pleasure was never the intent of a piece of art. Appreciation (pleasure) may come secondary, but there is much where it was not the primary reason for a piece.

 

You keep saying "gaze at naked bodies for pleasure". Wow, I'm wondering if you have some warped mentality on this. Many people STUDY pieces of art for something other than "pleasure". Do they have an appreciation of the skill of an artist? Sure. Appreciation for a skill and "gazing for pleasure" (sounds like you are thinking more about pornography and self gratification than walking through a museum) are two different things.

 

I never said that we have to look at nudity to understand history. Where are you getting that from. If it's from what I've said about the facts of the place of nude art being extremely tied to medical knowledge throughout history, that was to make a point and a statement of fact. Nowhere did I state one needs to view it to learn history.

[mommaduck]

God created us in perfect form...nothing aversed to seeing Master's reflect that creation...but I do not see as much 'art' in contemporary nudes...they seem to be more about voyeurism than respect for the human form...some renaissance paintings can be provocative...I do not encourage those...more about the intent behind the art.

Agreed. There are some that we avoid (but don't make a huge deal if they should be incidentally seen...we just move along. If comment is made upon it, I can either explain the difference or point out technique to remove focus from the intent or object). There are many that are not though. As you said, "intent" or context.

[Dory]

And see, this is where we disagree. Art is NOT just for pleasure. Many times pleasure was never the intent of a piece of art. Appreciation (pleasure) may come secondary, but there is much where it was not the primary reason for a piece.

 

You keep saying "gaze at naked bodies for pleasure". Wow, I'm wondering if you have some warped mentality on this. Many people STUDY pieces of art for something other than "pleasure". Do they have an appreciation of the skill of an artist? Sure. Appreciation for a skill and "gazing for pleasure" (sounds like you are thinking more about pornography and self gratification than walking through a museum) are two different things.

 

I never said that we have to look at nudity to understand history. Where are you getting that from. If it's from what I've said about the facts of the place of nude art being extremely tied to medical knowledge throughout history, that was to make a point and a statement of fact. Nowhere did I state one needs to view it to learn history.

 

I did not realize pleasure was a sexualized word. Appreciation and enjoyment, are types of pleasure. Being in awe at an artist ability, is a type of pleasure. But still, me looking at and studying this art, does not make me a better person or help humanity in any real way, it is simply for my enjoyment, and my appreciation. Even if it's not for the nudity really, but for the amazing talent of the artist (which there most definitely is), I am still looking at nudity simply for my enjoyment in a sense.

 

The history thing, was just me covering my bases on why one would need to study nude art. I wasn't trying to imply that you had said it was a necessity, my apologies if it came across that way.

[mommaduck]

I did not realize pleasure was a sexualized word. Appreciation and enjoyment, are types of pleasure. Being in awe at an artist ability, is a type of pleasure. But still, me looking at and studying this art, does not make me a better person or help humanity in any real way, it is simply for my enjoyment, and my appreciation. Even if it's not for the nudity really, but for the amazing talent of the artist (which there most definitely is), I am still looking at nudity simply for my enjoyment in a sense.

 

The history thing, was just me covering my bases on why one would need to study nude art. I wasn't trying to imply that you had said it was a necessity, my apologies if it came across that way.

The way you kept phrasing it came off as though you were insisting there was something lustful or sexual about it. (internet communication, but that's how it came across) Particularly when there had been plenty of mention of the technicalities and study, but you kept insisting it was "gazing in pleasure" :001_huh:

[justamouse]

And I am really starting to wonder about why looking at a naked statue is so different from looking at a naked person. Art is for pleasure, from how I'm seeing I don't know if it would really be right for me to teach my kids that it is ok to gaze at naked bodies for pleasure. We can understand history without looking at nudity, it isn't really necessary.

 

 

Well, first off, a statue is a representation of a person, It houses no soul, and is not made in the image of God. That's a huge difference.

 

And I'm confused (and seeing the hypersexualization) at the words 'gazing for pleasure'. Can we know each person's thoughts? No, but i'm in charge of my own. So when I look at a beautiful piece of nude art, like any other piece of art, first, you step back. You look at it as a whole and see if it's harmonious. You look at the color, the shadow and light. You see positive and negative space (people do this without knowing it). Do they add? Do they detract? You look at the expressions, at the skin tone, are they real? What is this person thinking, feeling, has the artist rendered the emotion of the piece truthfully? Take a few steps closer. Look at the skin tone, look at the brush strokes. I bet you see blues and peaches in the skin, light and shadow over muscles. How did the artists get all of those colors in a brushstroke? You move way back again, and take it in as a whole and stand in amazement at the talent, at how beautiful the expression of the whole work is, how beautiful people are. Why do you like the piece? HAs the work of this artist sparked some knowledge of inner truth within you? Yes, that man is beautiful, he is good, and he is made in the image of God. This lowly body that will become dust, is transcendently beautiful, and that artist has somehow captured in paint a glimpse of our immortal soul.

 

Gazing isn't such a bad thing. Especially when through it you touch fingers with the divine.

Edited June 25, 2012 by justamouse

[Dory]

Well, first off, a statue is a representation of a person, It houses no soul, and is not made in the image of God. That's a huge difference.

 

And I'm confused (and seeing the hypersexualization) at the words 'gazing for pleasure'. Can we know each person's thoughts? No, but i'm in charge of my own. So when I look at a beautiful piece of nude art, like any other piece of art, first, you step back. You look at it as a whole and see if it's harmonious. You look at the color, the shadow and light. You see positive and negative space (people do this without knowing it). Do they add? Do they detract? You look at the expressions, at the skin tone, are they real? What is this person thinking, feeling, has the artist rendered the emotion of the piece truthfully? Take a few steps closer. Look at the skin tone, look at the brush strokes. I bet you see blues and peaches in the skin, light and shadow over muscles. How did the artists get all of those colors in a brushstroke? You move way back again, and take it in as a whole and stand in amazement at the talent, at how beautiful the expression of the whole work is, how beautiful people are. Why do you like the piece? HAs the work of this artist sparked some knowledge of inner truth within you? Yes, that man is beautiful, he is good, and he is made in the image of God. This lowly body that will become dust, is transcendently beautiful, and that artist has somehow captured in paint a glimpse of our immortal soul.

 

Gazing isn't such a bad thing. Especially when through it you touch fingers with the divine.

 

No I am most definitely not meaning anything sexual about the word 'pleasure' from here on I think I'll try and never use that word again, I guess it has more attached to it than I was realizing.

 

Yes there are some amazing nude pieces. Studying them I'm sure would be interesting. Just as studying great works of art in all it's form are interesting. I can say much the same of studying pieces of music. Yes the man is beautiful, he is good, and he is made in the image of God. But I do believe God clothed Adam and Eve, so perhaps as amazing as it is, it's not meant to be shared with everyone.

Studying art in detail, and learning some piece of why we see things the way we do, and why we feel the way we do, can be achieved with other works of art. The art doesn't have to be nude.

Seeing things through the eyes of someone else (also a great thing about studying art in all it's forms), can be achieved without it being nude.

[Juniper]

I did not realize pleasure was a sexualized word. Appreciation and enjoyment, are types of pleasure. Being in awe at an artist ability, is a type of pleasure. But still, me looking at and studying this art, does not make me a better person or help humanity in any real way, it is simply for my enjoyment, and my appreciation. Even if it's not for the nudity really, but for the amazing talent of the artist (which there most definitely is), I am still looking at nudity simply for my enjoyment in a sense.

 

The history thing, was just me covering my bases on why one would need to study nude art. I wasn't trying to imply that you had said it was a necessity, my apologies if it came across that way.

I have to respectfully disagree with the bolded. Being able to look at appreciate art, to be moved by the beauty, feel the stirring in ones soul, have the creative places in your mind tickled, awe and wonder at a fellow humans ability, and amazement at the fantastical imagination the God has given....does make you a better person. Art speaks to the soul similarly to great literature. In fact it is often described as literature for the illiterate. When you become a better person, someone attuned and humbled by others abilities, your mind broadened both emotionally and empathetically...you do help humanity. When you teach your children to appreciate and find admiration for things that do not naturally stir those qualities, you are impressing on them the ability to find the beautiful, the stunning, the miraculous....in that which they initially find repulsive or unattractive. I could go on, but the whole purpose of great art IS to make YOU a better person and to benefit humanity, either through you or through itself. :001_smile:

[Dory]

I have to respectfully disagree with the bolded. Being able to look at appreciate art, to be moved by the beauty, feel the stirring in ones soul, have the creative places in your mind tickled, awe and wonder at a fellow humans ability, and amazement at the fantastical imagination the God has given....does make you a better person. Art speaks to the soul similarly to great literature. In fact it is often described as literature for the illiterate. When you become a better person, someone attuned and humbled by others abilities, your mind broadened both emotionally and empathetically...you do help humanity. When you teach your children to appreciate and find admiration for things that do not naturally stir those qualities, you are impressing on them the ability to find the beautiful, the stunning, the miraculous....in that which they initially find repulsive or unattractive. I could go on, but the whole purpose of great art IS to make YOU a better person and to benefit humanity, either through you or through itself. :001_smile:

 

True, I would have to agree with that.

Does one have to study nude art to learn that. After all, I would hope my kids would never see the human form as repulsive or unattractive, I have never approached topics about it in that way. So studying it for them would not teach them to see beauty in something that they initially find repulsive.

All of these lessons you are talking about could be taught without nude art ever being there, in fact, much of it could be taught without actually using art, but learning to study the everyday beauty of the creations (by people or God) that are around us. Or some of it could be taught with music.

[mommaduck]

True, I would have to agree with that.

Does one have to study nude art to learn that. After all, I would hope my kids would never see the human form as repulsive or unattractive, I have never approached topics about it in that way. So studying it for them would not teach them to see beauty in something that they initially find repulsive.

All of these lessons you are talking about could be taught without nude art ever being there, in fact, much of it could be taught without actually using art, but learning to study the everyday beauty of the creations (by people or God) that are around us. Or some of it could be taught with music.

Yes, but studying nudes IS necessary for artists and art students. It IS necessary for those that learn to draw and do so for a variety of technical books.

[Juniper]

True, I would have to agree with that.

Does one have to study nude art to learn that. After all, I would hope my kids would never see the human form as repulsive or unattractive, I have never approached topics about it in that way. So studying it for them would not teach them to see beauty in something that they initially find repulsive.

All of these lessons you are talking about could be taught without nude art ever being there, in fact, much of it could be taught without actually using art, but learning to study the everyday beauty of the creations (by people or God) that are around us. Or some of it could be taught with music.

I think nude art has a very unique role in teaching us to appreciate that which society says is not attractive. When I teach my boys to appreciate a Ruben, I never have to worry about them not finding beauty in a future spouse, regardless of her size or figure. (that is just one really basic example ;)). I agree that sexualized nudes are not for everyone's eyes. Especially children. It becomes easier to reinforce the beauty of my dd and give her a perspective that is older and far richer than Victoria Secret. Then there are discussions about why the artist painted his subject, who was his muse, what demons was he struggling with, does that come out in the work? Things of that nature. Questions like how do you think the painting would have been different if the artist was in a different emotional state?

 

Again, these are not really coherent thoughts, more musings off the cuff ;). I am sure I could come up with more examples if I thought about it more. :D

[Dory]

Yes, but studying nudes IS necessary for artists and art students. It IS necessary for those that learn to draw and do so for a variety of technical books.

 

yes I suppose for an art student it would be a necessity, but I guess I'm focussing more on things from my role as a mom and my kids. Yes I suppose that is a little narrow minded and I will have to think this through from some different angles, but for now, I don't have to deal with any of my kids become artists.

 

My husbands cousin is an accomplished artist though wish exquisite paintings and she has never studied nude art.

 

I think nude art has a very unique role in teaching us to appreciate that which society says is not attractive. When I teach my boys to appreciate a Ruben, I never have to worry about them not finding beauty in a future spouse, regardless of her size or figure. (that is just one really basic example ;)). I agree that sexualized nudes are not for everyone's eyes. Especially children. It becomes easier to reinforce the beauty of my dd and give her a perspective that is older and far richer than Victoria Secret. Then there are discussions about why the artist painted his subject, who was his muse, what demons was he struggling with, does that come out in the work? Things of that nature. Questions like how do you think the painting would have been different if the artist was in a different emotional state?

 

Again, these are not really coherent thoughts, more musings off the cuff ;). I am sure I could come up with more examples if I thought about it more. :D

 

lol most of my thoughts here are somewhat musings and a little off the cuff. That tends to be the way I think WAY too much:D.

 

Society does see nude art as beautiful though. It is after all, art. I would think that it would be more valuable to teach my children to see the beauty in real people, and I have had that sort of discussion with my kids on a few different occasions already. Discussing what 'demons' the artists was struggling with, is something I like to discuss about every type of art that we appreciate. Trying to see the world through anothers eyes is a good thing, but there are some interesting non nude works of art out there that would stimulate a discussion on that.

 

I hope I'm not coming across as too argumentative. I tend to have that habit with the way I word things. This is a type of discussion I have never had to think through thoroughly and discussions like this are good in that I find they stimulate me to really think through why I see things the way I do and why do I approach some things the way I do. I apologize if I sound argumentative at all.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I guess I'm focussing more on things from my role as a mom and my kids.

 

Since the original post asked "How do you feel about your dc viewing nudes in paintings and/or sculptures?" I think your focus is perfectly reasonable.

[mommaduck]

 

My husbands cousin is an accomplished artist though wish exquisite paintings and she has never studied nude art.

Then she is limited in her capabilities and education. As such, she would not be able to be hired for certain works that are necessary and beneficial to society. Not a cut, just a fact. I also have cousins that are artists. One does not do nudes either. I'm sure she's studied them, even lightly, but it's most likely not her strength. I know several iconographers. One does work other than iconography. He regularly posts sketches he's working on to strengthen his skills and talent. Some are nudes. I've yet to see one that he's put out there with a full frontal or any such like that. Much of it is in technical skill, playing with form and variables, and trying to capture emotion through body language (and usually not passion or lust).

 

I understand the being mom part. My role as a mother is also to teach critical thinking skills, to teach them to discern context, to teach them to not intentionally go looking for offense, etc.

Edited June 25, 2012 by mommaduck

[Juniper]

 

Society does see nude art as beautiful though. It is after all, art. I would think that it would be more valuable to teach my children to see the beauty in real people, and I have had that sort of discussion with my kids on a few different occasions already.

 

 

I think I would have some questions about your judgement as a parent if you were having your children admire real life naked people, with the goal being appreciation. (other than if they were older and taking a formal human form drawing course) I know that is not quite what you are saying though. My point is that your answer to my argument does not quite fit. I am talking about appreciating the naked body and not the just the airbrushed versions of today. ;) You are talking about appreciating beauty in general.

Discussing what 'demons' the artists was struggling with, is something I like to discuss about every type of art that we appreciate. Trying to see the world through anothers eyes is a good thing, but there are some interesting non nude works of art out there that would stimulate a discussion on that.

Of course! These types of discussions should be had about all great works.

I hope I'm not coming across as too argumentative. I tend to have that habit with the way I word things. This is a type of discussion I have never had to think through thoroughly and discussions like this are good in that I find they stimulate me to really think through why I see things the way I do and why do I approach some things the way I do. I apologize if I sound argumentative at all.

Nah, I like to have a good discussion. And I have walked a path of conflicting extremes. I remember reading Watchman Nee in a discipleship class and my youth pastor asking my what I thought about the fact that he said all artwork was "wordly" and therefore bad. He was asking me this, because my parents are artists. At that point in my life I agreed with Nee. I now realize that was very reactionary and narrow minded. It put God in an itty bitty box. :D

Edited June 25, 2012 by Juniper

[reign]

I see nothIng wrong with nude art. The girls have all seen classical sculptures and paintings. They have even seen my figure drawings from university. The only time they REALLY commented on nudity was in the book "in the night kitchen" by Maurice Sendak when little Mickey falls into the milk naked. They thought that was hilarious!