Dare I ask? Nudity in sculpture, what say ye?

[Prufrock]

There is certainly nudity that cannot under any circumstances be seductive: one need only watch a movie such as Schindler's List and I think any foundation of disagreement is swept away. The nudity you see in that film I think is incapable of seducing or causing lust.

Who says we can't separate sexual "revealing" from nonsexual?

 

[LawrenceU]

Hmm, I guess those generations of my, and most likely your, female forbears that nursed their children during church services, at the home of a friend, in the fields, in the wagon outside the store, and a myriad of other places were raving feminists. I think not. Feminism is women wanting to bare their breast for reasons other than nursing, whether it be to attract sensually, to shock the public, or just flaunt their 'rights'.

I nurse my child in various places as the ones mentioned above, and I can still do so very discreetly with a cover. To say that those women didn't cover with a blanket is just silly. You don't know either way.

I think we are misreading one another. At least, I misread what you wrote. I'm staunchly against the feminism that you mention. But, I am also staunchly against the demeaning of the wonderful gift of nursing that God has given to nursing mother and child. To make it a shameful activity that must be hidden away as some sensual activity is a travesty and I believe smacks at God's created order.

 

[Prufrock]

We are to be modest and chaste, always and in everything. That being said, a mother breastfeeding simply is not sexually revealing. I've never encountered another male in whom that wells up a fountain of lust. Rather, it is more prone to make the men uncomfortable and unsure of how to respond (it truly is one of the least sexually suggestive things I can imagine). The biggest charge that can be laid against it is that it causes awkwardness among men. To which I reply, "we just need to get used to it." Don't know if many share that thought or not. Oh well.

But, since this thread was actually about nude art -- I don't know. Hey, I'm a guy and I'm still perfectly able to admit that Michaelangelo's "David" is simply a beautiful piece of art. Is it something we should celebrate in art or not, though? I really don't know.

-----Added 12/9/2008 at 10:16:28 EST-----

(Side story: I remember reading a news article a few years ago during a cleaning/restoring of the Sistine Chapel. One of the workers began work on a painting of Mary (I think?) and, upon stripping away built-up material, he was shocked to discover he actually pulled off clothing, and revealed her to be bare-breasted nursing an infant. Apparently at some point in forgotten history, someone in the chapel thought Michaelangelo's work to be inappropriate and gave her some extra clothing with his paint brush. Needless to say, the renovators were quite surprised by their discovery).

 

[AThornquist]

I just don't understand the point of nude art the vast majority of the time. Besides, if it is a statue of a woman or something, I really don't need that sort of thing on my mind. I struggle to remain pure as it is!

 

[Rocketeer]

(Side story: I remember reading a news article a few years ago during a cleaning/restoring of the Sistine Chapel. One of the workers began work on a painting of Mary (I think?) and, upon stripping away built-up material, he was shocked to discover he actually pulled off clothing, and revealed her to be bare-breasted nursing an infant. Apparently at some point in forgotten history, someone in the chapel thought Michaelangelo's work to be inappropriate and gave her some extra clothing with his paint brush. Needless to say, the renovators were quite surprised by their discovery).

When I was in the Sistine Chapel, the guide told us of the great restaurations sponsored by Kodak. Now the enormous paintings about the last judgment contains tons of nudity, but someone had apparently thought it was inappropriate. He had all the nudity covered everywhere in the entire painting (hundreds and hundreds of humans). It was a different kind of paint, and it all came off easily. Ironically, the nude parts that had been covered by the newer paint were least damaged.

That said, breastfeeding is indeed one of the most unsexual activities a woman can perform, and even if it were not so, the needs of the babe override the awkwardness or depravity of man (whatever be the case).

On the original image mentioned by the OP: I think it hardly represents justice. There is one thing that I do not quite understand, though: why does any sculpture or painting need to contain so much nudity? Excepting Adam and Eve before the fall, all the persons anciently pictured wore clothes - why depict them naked, then, even in Renaissance art?

 

[discipulo]

Certainly there is a lot of futile «art» and Nudity in Art poses a very difficult question.

But I still believe myself that some nude art is beautiful and decent

while some non nude art is terribly offensive to human dignity – to men and women created in the image of God.


Francis Schaeffer books: Escape from Reason . The God Who is there . and

How should We then Live?: The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture

deal extensively with the subject - and on pages – 25, 68, 73, 75 of How we should...

Schaeffer places portraits of nude Art – for the sake of his argument and comments



So I pose a practical exercise in discernment - pictures attached

How would you see, compare and qualify morally?

if you think you should, of course, please note these are contemporary related works!


Auguste Rodin - The Kiss - 1904 – one of my favourite sculptures


Pablo Picasso - Les Demoiselles d'Avignon – 1907 - also on page 187 of Schaeffer's book


In my personal opinion, Picasso, too often tremendously overrated, is bad art, but above all while being

less realistic, less explicit in anatomy, less graphic, is actually grossly obscene and deeply offensive to God’s creation.

My personal belief is that Rodin isn’t.


Definitely it is not an easy matter…

 

[Notthemama1984]

Seeing a grown woman breast feeding is no where near a temptation to lust at all.

I understand that it may not be a temptation to you, but there is a particular perversion where men lust after lactating breasts...even if babies are attached to them.

and yes men can learn to stop lusting. If they say they can't, they are just trying to find an excuse to blame someone else.

Let's not talk about some generic group of men here...
Have you have learned to stop lusting?

Little kids are a perversion for some men as well. Should I not take my little girl into the men's restroom when she needs to go "potty?"


I have the free will to choose to stop lusting. Numerous times I am successful, but I am not perfect.

 

[larryjf]

Little kids are a perversion for some men as well. Should I not take my little girl into the men's restroom when she needs to go "potty?"


I have the free will to choose to stop lusting. Numerous times I am successful, but I am not perfect.

The Bible doesn't portray children as sensual...it does portray breasts that way.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I think it would be best if women just walked around in a suit of this type:

 

[Rocketeer]

I think it would be best if women just walked around in a suit of this type:

Oh? If we're going down that path, what about this? It's uncomfortable and unrevealing, so I think it qualifies.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/s...ooper_armour.jpg/95px-Stormtrooper_armour.jpg

 

[Pergamum]

Some of the same arguments can be made about images of Christ. They have their place but can be abused.

By that I mean one can make a pragmatic argument about most things.

What is wrong with something being practical? Doctrine is not impractical is it?

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 08:20:46 EST-----

Rocketeer, we can see the shape of that Starship Trooper's fanny, thus, said immodest uniform must go and be exchanged for something more flowing and not so revealing, like the Emperor Palpatine's robes.

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 08:26:25 EST-----

There are plenty of pictures on the internet of just "naked women" that are not having sex it is just a different version, though a bit tamer, than out right sex. It still leads to lust and something else I won't mention...

Is it pietistic to not view naked women or men? What does it benefit? That art we are viewing nowadays was just as bad as Playboy at one time it is just that we have become too desensitized to certain things.

Something I find interesting is that violence is movies is considered to be, not that bad, but nudity is verboten. Example, a movie I was watching showed a graphic depiction of a child getting mauled by a wolf but did had a shower scene but did not show the woman naked, (this was in the past). It made me think though that a child being mauled by a wolf has to be more traumatic visually than a woman's naked body.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT COMING UP!


Many PG films do, in fact show nudity.....NATIVE NUDITY!

This can either be for one of two reasons (or maybe an admixture of both):

(1) Most people recognize that nudity for the purpose of anthropology, some kinds of art, medical purposes and documentary is different than posing nude for arousal,

(i.e. I watched a show on breast cancer and it showed how to do a breast exam.....was I sinning?)


or,


2). There is racism abounding that says that wooly-haired black natives can have their breasts flopping around in jungle documentaries but white women from Hollywood cannot.



So, explain to me why native nudity is okay. I see naked women all the time and it is so very un-sexual. Culture at large assumes a distinction. Why?

Bumping this point so that it can be answered:

Is it racism that we can have magazines full of bare-breasted black women in tribal situations and not consider it p0rnography (most people anyways), but bare-breasted white women get censored.


Or, does society recognize that there is a non-sexual nudity that can be displayed without censorship, such that in some news magazines breasts are displayed when talking about breast cancer, breastfeeding or corpses are displayed nude if a tragedy happens?

Is the world wiser than us when it comes to making the important distinctions whereas we only see black and white? Or is the world racist and thinks that only white "civilized" breasts are sexual?

 

[Rocketeer]

Some of the same arguments can be made about images of Christ. They have their place but can be abused.

By that I mean one can make a pragmatic argument about most things.

What is wrong with something being practical? Doctrine is not impractical is it?

There is a difference between being practical and being pragmatic. In the words of Wikipedia: "In ordinary usage, pragmatism refers to behavior which temporarily sets aside one ideal to pursue a lesser, more achievable ideal."

Is this something we should do with regard to God, his Law and his Word?

Rocketeer, we can see the shape of that Starship Trooper's fanny, thus, said immodest uniform must go and be exchanged for something more flowing and not so revealing, like the Emperor Palpatine's robes.

I beg pardon. Is this one better?

 

[he beholds]

So I pose a practical exercise in discernment - pictures attached

How would you see, compare and qualify morally?

if you think you should, of course, please note these are contemporary related works!


Auguste Rodin - The Kiss - 1904 – one of my favourite sculptures


Pablo Picasso - Les Demoiselles d'Avignon – 1907 - also on page 187 of Schaeffer's book


In my personal opinion, Picasso, too often tremendously overrated, is bad art, but above all while being

less realistic, less explicit in anatomy, less graphic, is actually grossly obscene and deeply offensive to God’s creation.

My personal belief is that Rodin isn’t.


Definitely it is not an easy matter…

I agree that Picasso's is more obscene, and I think it's because it looks to be created for the voyeur. The scenario itself looks indecent--it may not be indecent, as there might be a legitimate reason these women are all standing around, but it at the very least hints at indecency.
The Rodin one, while it is depicting intimacy, does not seem to be aimed at the voyeur in my opinion. The act shown is not indecent--or if it is (like if it's an unmarried couple), it doesn't look to be indecent.

But it could still make some people uncomfortable. I think what's part of the problem is the intent--which others have mentioned. In our culture, women are so objectified that a female-only piece makes me think that the artist had other motives, or at least the person choosing to display the work.

My favorite artist is Marc Chagall. He has a lot of random semi-topless women, and some of the pictures may seem indecent, but usually I am not offended by them.

Hmm, I guess those generations of my, and most likely your, female forbears that nursed their children during church services, at the home of a friend, in the fields, in the wagon outside the store, and a myriad of other places were raving feminists. I think not. Feminism is women wanting to bare their breast for reasons other than nursing, whether it be to attract sensually, to shock the public, or just flaunt their 'rights'.

I nurse my child in various places as the ones mentioned above, and I can still do so very discreetly with a cover. To say that those women didn't cover with a blanket is just silly. You don't know either way.

I think we are misreading one another. At least, I misread what you wrote. I'm staunchly against the feminism that you mention. But, I am also staunchly against the demeaning of the wonderful gift of nursing that God has given to nursing mother and child. To make it a shameful activity that must be hidden away as some sensual activity is a travesty and I believe smacks at God's created order.

I agree--I think we are all misreading each other! I haven't seen anyone say that nursing women should feel free to sit topless. What I am reading is the one side saying, "Blankets are bad--there's no need to cover because you won't be indecent, because I've never seen a woman nursing that looks indecent. The baby's head and her clothes covers all that could be seen."
The other side is saying,"If the woman cannot nurse without being indecent, then she needs a blanket or to remove herself from mixed company." As a mother who has been pregnant or nursing since Fall 2005, this is the side I stand on. But I don't think it's really all that contradictory to the former side. I don't see any of us saying nursing shouldn't be done in public or no care needs to be taken to ensure that the mother is not exposed.
But please correct me if I have not captured all of the sides correctly♥

 

[discipulo]

Quoting Richard who started this amazing debate:

«Dare I ask? Nudity in sculpture, what say ye?

Offensive or Art? Nude Statue Unveiled Downtown…»

Hey, I thought the thread was about nudity in Art.

I guess it’s ok to discuss nursing mothers in shopping malls or costume decency…

by of what I’ve seen so far, I’m sure we will come up with a Christian Burka model pretty soon.

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 08:47:28 EST-----

and for Marc Chagall marriage was very central in his painting

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Some of the same arguments can be made about images of Christ. They have their place but can be abused.

By that I mean one can make a pragmatic argument about most things.

What is wrong with something being practical? Doctrine is not impractical is it?

There is a difference between being practical and being pragmatic. In the words of Wikipedia: "In ordinary usage, pragmatism refers to behavior which temporarily sets aside one ideal to pursue a lesser, more achievable ideal."

Is this something we should do with regard to God, his Law and his Word?

Rocketeer, we can see the shape of that Starship Trooper's fanny, thus, said immodest uniform must go and be exchanged for something more flowing and not so revealing, like the Emperor Palpatine's robes.

I beg pardon. Is this one better?

Nope you can see the eyes!!!

 

[nicnap]

Does the Torah have any stipulations about breast feeding? I don't think it is the same thing. It is comparing apples and oranges, pardon the pun.

I about spit out my drink....

Sorry, in this thread, that was particularly funny.

 

[discipulo]

maybe with a pair of shades will do

 

[SRoper]

If nudity in art is sometimes acceptable, then it must be acceptable to pose nude in front of an artist or photographer, correct? Are we really willing to put ourselves or our loved ones in that situation?

 

[Pergamum]

Medical books have pictures (foto) of nude models for examination and teaching purposes.

I remember a particularly graphic series of photographs about delivering a breech baby.

I would think that this could done without sin if the purpose was medical, especially if the Christian had a disorder that needed to be studied. I just photographed a guy's scrotum that swelled up the size of a cantaloupe due to worm infestation....is that somehow "dirty"?


Again, nudity has its purposes. Nudity, plus sexuality = smut.... but there are some cases of non-sexualized nudity, though care should be taken.

 

[discipulo]

Absolutely, for a medical purpose and medical teaching - classes or books – nude photographs

or even real patients present may be examined without any wrong motivations – as to the aspect of it.

Probably in Sculpture or Painting we may give some benefit that some artists, or just regular people

walking by the Louvre or in the Sistine Chapel, may do the same out of artistry alone, so to speak.

But if in the medical field that is absolutely necessary to properly form health care professionals.

Definitely it is not the case with Art.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Again, many in the medical field are not artists...artists provide a service to the medical field...artists have to learn somewhere and it's generally in a classroom. Someone poses in that classroom. They have to also be able to learn to draw a healthy body as well as a sick one. Patients don't happen for student artists. Photography didn't always exist and not all texts contain photography.

 

[peetred]

Hmm, I guess those generations of my, and most likely your, female forbears that nursed their children during church services, at the home of a friend, in the fields, in the wagon outside the store, and a myriad of other places were raving feminists. I think not. Feminism is women wanting to bare their breast for reasons other than nursing, whether it be to attract sensually, to shock the public, or just flaunt their 'rights'.

I nurse my child in various places as the ones mentioned above, and I can still do so very discreetly with a cover. To say that those women didn't cover with a blanket is just silly. You don't know either way.

I think we are misreading one another. At least, I misread what you wrote. I'm staunchly against the feminism that you mention. But, I am also staunchly against the demeaning of the wonderful gift of nursing that God has given to nursing mother and child. To make it a shameful activity that must be hidden away as some sensual activity is a travesty and I believe smacks at God's created order.

I think we have misunderstood each other in previous posts.
I completely agree that the activity itself should definately NOT be hidden.

 

[kvanlaan]

OK, maybe this is a little but I have to throw it in here. I worked for years with Koreans and can tell you that before foreign influence/pop culture was brought to bear on them, Korean society was about as traditional/puritanical (in terms of outward appearances) as they come, as they were so Confucian. Once Western influence came on the scene, the game was up, and now many 'artistes' race each other to see who can be more 'progressive' in their depiction of whatever story they are trying to tell.

Before I ramble too long, I want to get to my point (because I really did have one!) I have a book on an American's travel through China and Korea in a Dodge Touring car and he took photos of just about anything that moved. One of the photos is of a young mother walking down the road. Breasts? Uncovered. A long, long skirt, almost to the ankles, but breasts completely uncovered. I've seen the same in China but an old woman trying to deal with the heat of the day.

Our culture has issues.

 

[Rocketeer]

Our culture has issues.

 

[Richard King]

This has been interesting.

I don't think the human form automatically evokes sexual excitement but there is no denying the potential is there.
I guess the real danger in any artistic image is admiring the creation rather than the creator.

At any rate...
I try to stay abreast of these TOPics and I appreciate the feedback and exposure to all of the thinking here.
I hope this discussion hasn't caused any cleavage between the posters.
It has at times been uplifting.
Cross my heart.

 

[he beholds]

Oh wait a minute...you did that on purpose. OOPS. haha...got me!

 

[Pergamum]

REAL LIFE RECENT SCENARIO:



Here is something that happened this week that has a close relationship to this thread. I am still processing it mentally.


I send out prayer letters and I always try to make these prayer letters very visually rich and I add many pictures. One picture is worth more than a thousand words because people just simply cannot believe the conditions here. Despite describing the tribal conditions in grreat detail I had one person ask me why the tribal group I work with just don't get jobs and buy clothes and food at the store (ha, yes a whole week downriver I guess, where other peoples' magic is more powerful). And so a few pictures have quite an effect to show the daily life of the people here.



Tribal life is not usually clothed and so to take the varying views on this issue into acount I now make it a practice not to show adult native nudity. While this severely limits my stock of photos and many of my very best pictures of groups of tribals interacting in daily village life cannot be shown, I have decided that limiting such pictures would reduce any offense given - something I now feel bound to do.


However, like a bonehead this week, I sent out a tribal photo and made sure it had no native nudity of adults. But, all kids under 10 are nude and this just doesn't register with me.

Not that I try to cater to what moves people the most but some of the pictures of the sick women and neglected children are often the most moving and best display the urgent needs of this place. How else do you show the sad condition of a population wheremore than half of the population dies before age 15, 60% of the people have filiarisis in their blood, about 80% have chronic malaria, more than half are malnourished and there is wide-scale warfare, the occasional withc-killing and the regular abondonement of babies born into holes and covered up and left to die. Some shock value has a spiritual purpose, but I try to limit now pictures of native nudity, despite the need to paint the dire situation very raw and accurately.


So, I no longer add pictures of tribal adults that may be seemed offensive (and usually suceed) but I added a picture of naked jungle kids (there is no such thing as clothed jungle kids in some areas here) to my prayer letter and have received "advice" against this in the future.

So, in the future I need to be more careful. I feel like a moron and I hope that the majority of people that received this newsletter were not offended. I had no idea what the email reply was even talking about and I remember thinking, "What could possibly be offensive?" so this was a shock and I guess a very good lesson for me that, despite my own views, I need to be sensitive to the needs or weaknesses of other - especially in the West where children are increasingluy being exploited and childhood is being sexualized (barbie, bikinis for 6 year olds, make-up for 8 year old girls, etc).

YIKES, I FEEL LIKE SUCH A MORON!

 

[Prufrock]

Perg, it sounds like you have quite the time where you are: sometime when you're here again, you'll have to hold a week long "story-time" of what you've been doing, so as many PBer's as can get to where you are can hear all about it.

 

[py3ak]

Pergamum, I wouldn't worry about it too much. If people can't deal with the realities of your life, then they need not to come visit you, but can hopefully still pray and contribute, while being thankful (as I am) that someone less squeamish is going to the desperate locations and disputing the dominion of darkness in those areas.

As far as pictures go, perhaps you could include a link to a website that has photos with the note that images may be disturbing (though I think it would be good to add that the images are not nearly so disturbing as the reality, and that ignoring the reality is no way to change it).

 

[Pergamum]

Good ideas. I am all for a few PB get-togethers and will be travelling much next year..to Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Texas, MN, and Wisconsin, PA, Virginia, Georgia and everywhere in between. Where do you live and maybe we could meet up.

Yes, I also thought about picture links. I think I do need to "cater" to folks in the churches, and conform to their standards of what is offensive or not - but I do feel a need to push them out of their comfort zones sometimes and regret that I cannot share some of the most telling pictures of the society.