DS asks - is renaissance art pornography?

[Porridge]

Has this question come up in your families? I have a way of explaining it but I feel my answer could probably use more thought and depth — would like to hear other perspectives.

[Porridge]

I should explain the background of this question, and what I’ve told my kids.

We are currently studying the Renaissance, and have been using some of the picture study materials from SCM. In the Michelangelo kit, the statue of David is censored in the sense that they don’t show the whole statue  - they only show close ups of the face and arm.  DS picked up on that immediately and asked why they didn’t show the entire image — “Is it pornography?”

We’ve previously read together as a family Good Pictures, Bad Pictures (an excellent book for families to read together, IMO), so the kids know about the concept of pornography.

This was my initial off-the-top-of-head response to DS’s question:

Whether an image qualifies as Pornography partly depends on the intent of the person producing or distributing the image.  For instance, a drawing of an unclothed figure in a medical textbook is presented with the intent to educate, and ultimately to help train medical professionals to help others. A drawing of human anatomy in a book about puberty is presented with the intent to help a child understand and feel comfortable with their own body.  A pornographic image is created and distributed with the intent to profit in some way off of the individual in the image — whether to profit sensually, or to make a financial profit, or to “profit” one’s sense of power over others. Pornography ultimately degrades the humanity of the person being depicted, as well as the person creating the depiction and the people who consume (view) the image.

One point of view states that Renaissance humanists celebrated the beauty of the human body and the sense of power and potential inherent in the human body.  They created certain works of art with the intent to celebrate humanity, not to degrade it.  

Thoughts?  I’d love additional nuance.  

@Quarter Note and @Publia, hope you don’t mind I’m tagging you since you seem to have some background in Renaissance art.

Edited December 10, 2020 by JHLWTM

[Lori D.]

That's a great explanation. 😄 

Because we have physical, s*xual bodies, images of the unclothed human body will naturally always have some sort of reaction. So I would add that a *viewer* can turn a work that includes a nude human figure into p*rnography by having it incite er*ticism within that viewer, regardless of the original intention of the creator of the work.

If your family has a Christian view, you may find the 2 short audio interviews on volume 100 of Ken Myers' Mars Hill Audio Journal to be interesting. Ted Prescott talks a little bit about the difference between "n*de" and "n*ked". In the Western art tradition (Ancient Greek into Renaissance), "n*de" has to do with human embodiment (the spirit and totality of a person within a physical body), and that the n*dity shows the power of full humanity--in contrast, "n*ked" has to do with unclothedness with erotic associations.

A LOT of unclothed images in this Wikipedia article on Depictions of N*dity, but it is helpful in explaining the different ideas and associations, in case it helps give you some more background info for further discussions.

 

[Sneezyone]

I chose to talk about art matter of factly rather than get into unknowable artistic ‘intent’ or semantics. The human body is something to be admired. There is an evolutionary, biological and biblical function associated with its attractiveness. It’s supposed to inspire strong feelings and I’ve no doubt that old and new admirers and artists (regardless of medium), understood/understand that. Whether someone creates or uses images of the human body to gratify themselves without regard for the inherent worth/value of those bodies or the souls within them is another matter.

I think it’s easy to look at Renaissance paintings, exaggerated and cartoonish by today’s standards, and find them esoteric vs. erotic. I don’t believe the people of those times had the same reaction at all. Rather, I think they saw the human body for what it is, an object of both pleasure and awe. Nakedness, unclothedness, nudity...it’s all the same to me. I described pornography to my peeps as images/videos that inspire feelings of domination, subjugation, ownership and abuse IN THE VIEWER versus art that inspires feelings of reverence, joy, care and admiration. I encouraged them to look into their own hearts to see what feelings *they* were feeling and act/react accordingly.

I took this approach because I was concerned about the sexual health of both of my kids and wanted neither to be ashamed of admiring the human form or of displaying theirs with a future partner. I also want them to appreciate the beauty of their partner’s form.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Sneezyone

[kristin0713]

This has come up with my kids.  They have not called it pornography but said that it was inappropriate and asked why so much art from that time period is inappropriate.  I kept it simple but explained it similarly as others' explanations here -- the human body is beautiful and nothing to be ashamed of, this type of art celebrates the human body, and it was a very common and accepted art form during other points in history.

Edited December 11, 2020 by kristin0713

[Publia]

David definitely is not, not even the complete figure. 😉

A framework for thinking about this question with a child might be: Does the image in question appeal to what is transcendent in man, or what is animal? It’s a common experience that some things tend to move us toward the transcendent and some tend to move us in the other direction. Art is part of humankind’s search for truth. We are capable of reaching into transcendent truth but we are also capable of dwelling in the purely animal. Meaningful art will extract us from the purely material by directing us to a higher purpose. David is a good example of that. Obscenity does exactly the opposite; it mires the human spirit in the basest elements of its animal nature.

[Terabith]

I vote no.  

I had one kid write a pretty impassioned and convincing essay on why pretty much the entire Renaissance is fan fiction/ fan art, however.  

[bookbard]

How old? There's a lot of discussion around art - not specifically Renaissance - being tailored to the male gaze. I've read some interesting things about how women especially are drawn to be 'looked at' by men, and how that should be considered critically. I think there's an overview in wikipedia.

Not the same thing as 'all nude bodies are sexual' though. But I can see how kids are confused after years of parents telling them exasperatedly to put on their pants in public!

[Porridge]

2 hours ago, bookbard said:

How old? There's a lot of discussion around art - not specifically Renaissance - being tailored to the male gaze. I've read some interesting things about how women especially are drawn to be 'looked at' by men, and how that should be considered critically. I think there's an overview in wikipedia.

Not the same thing as 'all nude bodies are sexual' though. But I can see how kids are confused after years of parents telling them exasperatedly to put on their pants in public!

Late elementary / middle school age

 

[Quarter Note]

Hi again, JHLWTM. Everyone else has written so eloquently on this tough subject. I'll just add one more thing:

Depicting the human body is the most challenging thing that an artist can do. So, in one sense, when you see a body in art, you are seeing the artist's best technique. The artist is really showing off. It is difficult to get the correct proportions of the human body: head to body, limbs to body, etc., especially in any kind of natural posture. The shading of all those little ups and downs and curves on the human body is amazing. This is why even dedicated amateur artists spend years drawing from models all the time.  

Of course we get distracted looking at – ahem – parts, but the real work of a drawing, painting, or sculpture of the human body is elsewhere. I've never seen the David in person, but anytime I see a photograph of it, it's the muscles that I stare at!

All that is to say, when a child asks about the human body in art, you can also direct the child's attention to artistic technique. 

I am in such awe of the human body in art because I can only draw stick figures. 

[PeterPan]

When I was taking photography classes, I saw this topic come up. There was this tendency to go into nudes and what they would call "soft porn". I'm not sure if that's a term people use. You'd also see partial nudity in children, with people posting pictures of the backsides of their dc, etc. 

So I'm not sure you have to set it up as fine vs. porn. There are a lot of in between shades there and people sorting out what is appropriate, what is good for you to be looking at. Personally, I can't unsee the picture of that woman's boys' butts that she posted, and I wish I hadn't seen it. That didn't do me good and it wasn't edifying. Maybe they'd look back and laugh, but in our house that isn't what we do. We also don't need revealing bathtub shots. My dh didn't want the naked baby shots either.

If you're a christian, I think it's interesting to ponder what the art community does in the name of art and how they handle nudity vs. what the bible clearly says about why God gave us clothing. From a biblical standpoint, there clearly is shame in nudity.

So I have some nude renn art reproductions my grandparents brought back from Italy that were handed down to me. I don't hang them. I thought about hanging them up high somewhere or quietly putting some leafy plants in front, hehe. I think what artists struggle with and how they sort that out is not my struggle. I'm pretty clear that nudity isn't cool in our house. However if you want to read about how christians differ on that, you could look at different christian colleges/universities and their statements. Any dept having a freshman drawing class will have a statement paper on it. 

http://www.rondall-reynoso.com/speaking/  Apparently this guy speaks at the BJU Museum and Gallery. They have an extensive Renn art/religious art collection, so they have philosophy papers on it. They also have position papers on how they handle nudity in their freshman drawing (they don't do it). You could take another university like Cedarville and see what they do. 

[Lori D.]

Love all the points brought up by everyone! 😄

Adding to @bookbard's point about the male gaze - if wanting to read more about that, it is part of feminist & Freudian analysis theories of visual arts. Another element in that theory is that unclothed females are in relaxed positions of recline to show female passivity and to invite the male gaze and "possessing" the female figure, while unclothed males are in tensed muscle positions to show male action and power, which "rebuffs" the viewer from "possessing" the male figure.

I forgot to add one last thought: in our modern American culture, "s*x sells". Unclothedness or scantily clad or seductively positioned has been so turned into a tool for:
1.) arousal, and transferring that arousal into keeping the consumer's attention fixed on the product or service being sold
2.) sales by association -- "here's a perfect body seductively draped over the product -- buy the product, get the girl, or s*x, or you'll have a similar body or power to attract..."

Because advertising makes everything about the body about s*x in order to use it as a selling tool, we have been conditioned to see unclothed human images as highly s*xualized, and have a hard time getting beyond that to any other possible idea.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Lori D.

[Lori D.]

2 hours ago, PeterPan said:

...If you're a christian, I think it's interesting to ponder what the art community does in the name of art and how they handle nudity vs. what the bible clearly says about why God gave us clothing. From a biblical standpoint, there clearly is shame in nudity...

Just to clarify this Biblical point: post-FALL (after disobeying God) is when there is shame attached, and it has to do with the loss of relationship with God and reflecting/being covered in His glory ("made in His image"), which was lost at the time of disobedience. Hence, trying to cover themselves with fig leaves (a very inadequate replacement covering for God's glory and as if human acts can "redeem" that lost relationship). In contrast, God gives them the animal skins from the innocent animal sacrifice as the future picture of Christ the lamb's sacrifice for us, and we are then covered by his blood, and will in the future be clothed in his righteousness -- a restoration of being covered in and reflecting God's glory.

Clearly, that is not how God created people to begin with (to feel shame about n*kedness), as pre-fall, Genesis 2:25 states: "Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Lori D.

[Little Green Leaves]

I wouldn't call Renaissance art pornographic, no. 

I do think that all that glorying in the human form can feel just a tiny bit limiting. Michelangelo's work is gorgeous but I also find it a bit obsessive. It's also very different from ancient Greek nudes in terms of the worldview it conveys. With an older student, I'd want to talk  about that -- with a young student I'd stick to the excellent explanations already given about the difference between art and pornography.

 

[SilverMoon]

No. Every kid had some moment when I stopped shielding them from nude art, much like when it seemed like they were ready for more mature topics in their literature. Like an above poster I focused on the skill it takes to do a human body well. It's a mic drop moment from a master and worth our attention.

We used Sister Wendy books and vhs when my big kids were younger. A nun getting excited about the details and skill involved in nude art kept it in perspective too. She's fabulous. My youngest (10yo) and I read parts of Why is Art Full of Naked People (by Susan Hodge) this year. He was mock horrified when I handed him the book but admitted it's a good read. 

[kristin0713]

2 hours ago, Lori D. said:

in our modern American culture, "s*x sells". Unclothedness or scantily clad or seductively positioned has been so turned into a tool for:
1.) arousal, and transferring that arousal into keeping the consumer's attention fixed on the product or service being sold
2.) sales by association -- "here's a perfect body seductively draped over the product -- buy the product, get the girl, or s*x, or you'll have a similar body or power to attract..."

This is spot on, Lori!  I have used this same point when discussing with my kids why some cultures don't wear a lot of clothes, even today. It's very different from our sexualized American culture.