any art scholars here? Question about serious art, nudity, and modesty/legalism

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
I have been wondering about something that happened recently, and my reaction.

One of our boys is a dedicated Christian, active in church, hoping to go to the mission field, and a very talented art student. His school had a contest two years ago when he was a freshman and he took first prize for visual arts (1,000 bucks). His portraits amaze me, that he can so perfectly capture not only people's features, but even subtle expressions. He somtimes brings in biblical themes and a few (heathen) classmates have commented that they really like the way his art has a message.

He recently invested in frames and has hung up some pictures and given some away. So I am upstairs and he says he is thinking about framing the painting he just did in class. He shows me the painting and I almost fell over. I am sure it is excellent from the anatomical standpoint, but I made a comment about no way any p0rn is hanging up in this house, and he was kind of insulted. The whole class had to paint a model one night, and he did his best to paint a very good likeness of Shannon the stripper. I was infomed that this is a nude, not p0rn, and it is art, and he can understand I don't want it on the wall, but I really need to get a clue here.

Just an aside; I read Chaim Potok's book "My name is Asher Lev" years ago, about a talented artist kid, and his orthodox Jewish parents have the exact same conversation in the book and the kid says its not a naked lady, it is a nude, it is art, and they don't agree, and here I am reliving that scene in the book.

So anyway, I understand doctors learn anatomy and artists learn the human form, but it got me thinking about all the alleged great "art" in history, that to me, I just can't square with biblical commands to modesty. Its my kid's class assignment and I am not going to throw Shannon the stripper in the trash, but I'd sure like to. Meanwhile she is out of sight on a shelf upstairs. I did tell him I think its porno and I don't care what art students do, it isn't appropriate to keep it.

Normally I'd ask my husband, but I don't even want him to know about the picture and go look at it!!!! But this subject may come up again with darling son, and I want to be wise in what I say, and I am not sure if I am legalistic or not. Any thoughts? I think I really should tell hubby that Shannon is on a canvas upstairs on a shelf now that I think about it, and let him decide if she stays. But on a broader note, do Reformed people in general accept as art the nudes in museums by great painters, or do they call it what I call it- not modest and not acceptable? Even if it isn't an erotic pose, how can it be OK to display nudity like that? My art background is about zero, and I've never read anything theological on this, so thanks for any imput.
 
you said he was a freshman two years ago, so I am guessing he is about 17 years old? He is still your child under your roof, so I think he needs to respectfully submit to you and your husband's decision, regardless of whether he likes it or not. As for the question of whether the painting is "appropriate" or not, I think you should follow your conscience.
 
Thanks. I just went and talked to Mark and he thinks we better not kick Shannon off the shelf and out of the house; it was a school assignment and best to err on letting dear son make his own decisions, and he looks at his paintings critically and analytically, not lustfully with this. I also got a very helpful PM from somebody who had some experience in this area but didn't want to be too graphic on the thread, and it helped me with perspective on the whole thing.


Kids...there is always something new and unexpected..... :doh:

edit...he is 21, this is college
 
I think you should definitely talk to your husband about this! I had a good friend of mine who was an art student at the Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design....and it was "required" to do nudes as part of their lessons....being a Christian she refused to do it, and instead met with the Prof and asked for another subject matter....

Personally, I don't think it's being legalistic. In the Scriptures it is shameful to look upon another person naked who is not your spouse, and there are so many Scriptures that address temptation and not placing yourself in situations that would cause lustful thoughts. Personally, I do think it is a moral issue .....
 
You're either satisfied with your own wife's breasts or you ain't. And if you haven't got a wife, well, Shannon is either someone's wife or someone's daughter.
 
Hi Lynnie - I understand your concern about your son's painting and nudity in art in general. I have quite a bit of experience the use of nude models in art classes and for medical students. As a 1st or 2nd year med student I examined both male and female "models" to learn how to conduct proper breast and genital exams. I remember the female model was young and quite attractive, but there wasn't any temptation to lust for the hour or so she was nude in front of our group of 4-5 students. The reason is because the context isn't right. Likewise, I've examined, I dunno, thousands (?) of nude men and women since then and haven't been aroused or tempted to lust at any point. The reason is because the environment just isn't appropriate for thinking sinful thoughts. Most doctors and nurses - myself included - just shut off that part of the brain when dealing with patients, regardless of their age or level of attractiveness.

I think art is similar. While I was a medical student an art teacher friend of mine asked me to give an anatomical lecture to his students. So for about an hour one evening I stood in front of the class with a nude female model and discussed all the surface anatomy from head to toe. While the environment wasn't as sterile as a medical exam, it was nonetheless completely non-sexual. I have quite a bit of experience with nudity in painting and drawing that I won't discuss now, other than to say I have never felt the art studio was an environment that fostered lustful thoughts.

My personal feeling is that the human body is a beautiful creation - God's most impressive, in my opinion. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and that's why I don't believe nudity in itself is wrong. But context is king as always, and in most contexts nudity isn't appropriate, and we most obey the biblical commands to be modest. But in art I believe nudity can be appropriate and, dare I say it, God honoring. We enjoy beautiful mountains or flowers or historical events in art, why not the human body? Can't we visually enjoy God's most glorious creation? Obviously there is art - even classical art - that is intended to arouse and incite lust. But can't we appreciate the human form without falling into lust? Care is always needed, but I would argue we can.

So the bottom line is I believe your son can paint, draw, or sculpt nude men and women in his art class and not sin. What he does with his thoughts is a different matter, but I don't believe the art project itself is wrong. I would counsel him to be careful of his thoughts like he would looking at any other woman, but encourage him in his efforts. Who knows, he could be the next great figurative master. :cool:
 
I agree with Mason.

My sister is an art major - going into theatre costume design. Her senior project is figure drawing, so she has literally drawn hundreds of nude studies. She goes to a Christian college and gets LOTS of trouble over this - not from professors, but from other students who are extremely hard on her.

If your son is 21, this is a decision he needs to make, but if you're uncomfortable with it in your house, I think its fine to tell him, "You know, this makes me personally uncomfortable, and I'd rather not have it up. I hope that doesn't offend you. You know I love you and I'm proud of your talent." My parents don't have my sister's nudes hung up! (Although they're not uncomfortable with nude art, they understand that some of the visitors might be.)
 
While I know evangelicals like Francis Schaeffer and Ravi Zacharias think nude art can be a good thing, I personally believe it's best for nudes, if they are to be rendered, to remain in the sketchbook rather than displayed publicly.
 
I am perfectly fine with whatever nudity is necessary for proper medical training, because it is just plain necessary - the health or even the life of the one being examined is on the line.

But the notion that looking at another person's daughter, wife, son or husband naked for the sheer enjoyment of admiring God's creation is so far outside of my reality it's hard for me to see how it's even up for debate.

The human body is worth all the time and study and awe that everyone here argues for. And it's the job of both the husband and wife to gawk and admire all they like at each other. That's sacred, and it loses its beauty as soon as it is cast in the street for everyone to admire. That beauty was created for the spouse, and no one else.

I will not make any personal accusations, for I cannot truly know any man's heart. But I have serious doubts about the validity of the claim that continual exposure to such things, if taken with the "right" heart and mindset, does not affect the viewer negatively in some way or some form. It is a necessary fact that must be dealt with by doctors. There is no such necessity for artists. "I need to learn to draw better, and eventually learn to show the world the beauty of God's handiwork" is not a good enough excuse to take your eyes below the chin of my wife or future daughter.

Nakedness outside of the marriage relationship, or the most serious medical need, is shame and dishonor on everyone associated with it.
 
I really do appreciate the thoughtful replies, Mason's especially, and I can see that the Romans chapters on conscience and liberty definitely apply here. I do think from a biblical standpoint, as Idelette said, that "In the Scriptures it is shameful to look upon another person naked who is not your spouse" and I would think that nudity is only appropriate for absolute necessity such as the medical training. But my son is intent on technical skill when he paints in a room full of students (and Shannon from the neck up is middle aged with short hair and not even pretty) and I can see that he is not necessarily sinning to do his assignments.

So we are going to let it go, and it can stay in his portfolio if he wants, but she will not hang on the wall.

I will comment that I don't think bathing suits would lessen mastering the skills any, although the whole point is to do the art form nudes. His first year the class did a very old man who was nude and skin and bones- maybe he was on chemotherapy or soemthing but he was so incredibly thin- and I could see the value of that lesson. My son had to draw him perfectly and it was all ribs and bones, and I can see the learning anatomy of that, but even there, it didn't have to be nude.

Most doctors and nurses - myself included - just shut off that part of the brain when dealing with patients, regardless of their age or level of attractiveness.

Well, I am not sure family and friends here would be shutting off the brain with a stripper hanging up on my wall, so we'll compromise and leave it for the classroom. I myself don't have lust problems or a history of looking at p0rn ( I guess most women don't struggle in that area) but even I could not fully shut off my brain looking at that picture!!!

Thanks again for the replies.
 
smhbbag said:
I am perfectly fine with whatever nudity is necessary for proper medical training, because it is just plain necessary - the health or even the life of the one being examined is on the line.

...

Nakedness outside of the marriage relationship, or the most serious medical need, is shame and dishonor on everyone associated with it.
Click to expand...

Sorry Jeremy, I don't see this in Scripture. I understand your point and I agree that drawing and/or posing nude for artistic purposes isn't for everyone. But I don't see a biblical prohibition of it...

lynnie said:
Most doctors and nurses - myself included - just shut off that part of the brain when dealing with patients, regardless of their age or level of attractiveness.

Well, I am not sure family and friends here would be shutting off the brain with a stripper hanging up on my wall, so we'll compromise and leave it for the classroom. I myself don't have lust problems or a history of looking at p0rn ( I guess most women don't struggle in that area) but even I could not fully shut off my brain looking at that picture!!!

Thanks again for the replies.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to equate nudity in art and nudity in medicine entirely - clearly there is a difference. My point in comparing the two is to show that nudity can be appropriate in certain contexts - I believe art and medicine are two examples.
 
As an art grad from a Christian college, I can attest that drawing a model in a bathing suit is extremely effective at demonstrating the structure of a human body without being overly revealing. I will also say that trying to accurately draw a figure without some prior understanding of the underlying structure (for instance, someone in baggy clothes) is extremely difficult, maybe impossible.
 
AltogetherLovely said:
As an art grad from a Christian college, I can attest that drawing a model in a bathing suit is extremely effective at demonstrating the structure of a human body without being overly revealing. I will also say that trying to accurately draw a figure without some prior understanding of the underlying structure (for instance, someone in baggy clothes) is extremely difficult, maybe impossible.
Click to expand...

You raise a good point, Rachel. I have asked art teachers and artists if they could paint/draw/sculpt models in swimsuits, and they gave several good reasons why nudity was better: swimsuits are more distracting, they disrupt the flow of the form, often conceal the hips and pelvis (very important and difficult structures), and because of tradition on art education. I'm not saying every art student MUST work with nude models, but there are legit reasons for a model posing nude as opposed to wearing a swimsuit.
 
I asked my sister about the swimsuit issue once and in addition to the points that Mason raises, she said that swimsuits give the body a certain shape. So, you're not really getting a full understanding of the structure of the body.
 
Lynnie -

This week the Arts Ministry at Redeemer hosted a discussion on how a Christian should approach issues such as sexuality, nudity, profanity, violence, etc in the arts. It was titled "Art is not a 4-letter word," and was hosted by a TE and the director of the Arts Ministry. I think it would have been very helpful for you because the TE gave a theological framework for decision-making on these issues, and the Arts Director gave real-life practical examples of where these issues arise and how to apply the theological principles to them.

It's a complex topic, but they have give several principles. First, if the content is not directly addressed in God's Law it is a matter of Christian liberty, but wisdom must be applied in decision-making. The TE made the point that Christians should approach issues looking at how they affect personal piety, our Christian witness in the surrounding culture, and our call to further God's Kingdom. Specifically addressing the issue of nudity, they made the point that any nudity in the arts that is intended to arouse is sinful. However, nudity in itself isn't wrong so long as it doesn't violate one's conscience, is in an appropriate context, and ultimately brings glory to God. I found the entire discussion to be very helpful, and thought I would pass that little tidbit along.
 
Mason, thanks. It sounds interesting. Yes, a distance shot of a line of naked people being marched into the gas chambers in a WW11 documentary type film isn't the same as erotic nudity. I had found the replies here helpful earlier and the subject of my son's assignment hasn't bothered me since. When he paints he is engrossed with the color, the light, the paint, the brushstrokes. I don't think anybody walking in here and seeing it would notice his technique, they would notice her body parts, so she's on a basement shelf. (May we get a mildew infestation :D )

Scripture does speak clearly to modesty though. I can't imagine any justification at all, ever, for a Christian to be the one posing nude, whether for art or medicine. And if we don't want to eat out on Sunday and contribute to making others work ( even if they want to work and make money), do we want to do things that make a girl strip naked in front of a crowd? ( even if she wants to make money?) Can't we sacrifice a little bit of perfection in a drawing to have on a bathing suit, and can't med students learn from cadavers?

I think I would take the most conservative approach possible, without ruling out the medical necessity of examining nudes.

Anyway, thanks. I can see that it is a subject that needs to be addressed well in today's culture.
 
How about a mother-son art project?

You could turn old Shannon there into a three-dimensional art work by pinning a nice calico dress on her!

Voila! "Shannon the Farm-girl."
 
Art is not a virtue or necessary to life such that you can just ignore the commands of God. Just because man has created this discipline called art, and man-made rules for it, does not give men cause to just ignore God the ultimate rule maker. Nothing trumps God, not even art.
 
Wayne said:
How about a mother-son art project?

You could turn old Shannon there into a three-dimensional art work by pinning a nice calico dress on her!

Voila! "Shannon the Farm-girl."
Click to expand...

:lol::lol:

I visited the Princeton Univ Art Museum....old masterpieces from several centuries ago....you would not believe all the lurid artworks of Mother Mary nursing baby Jesus....I was aghast. Those RCCs sure knew how to appeal to the fallen flesh in the name of religion :p
 
Let's reduce this. But not to the point of deconstructionism.

Shannon is hot. Some guys paid her to take off her clothes. They wanted to see her naked. Yes, but that's Christian. Shannon is a nice Christian girl. I'm sure Mason's wife did the same thing.....Wait!!! That would be insulting!!! Or wouldn't it?????

Mason, would you be happy if your wife stripped naked so a bunch of people could paint her?

How many of the guys here would like if if their women stripped naked so people could paint or photo them?

So as not to be sexist (after all, Mason supports Tim Keller, the guy who won't ordain deacons even though his church constitution orders him to, so as not to offend women) would any of the women reading this strip naked so some people (children, parents, neighbors, etc..) would have the opportunity to paint or photograph a nubile woman?
 
Tim...you crack me up.

I am no art expert, but I do know that in terms of comprehensive art schooling at the college level, nudes are one part of it traditionally, like portraits and abstracts and landscapes and still lifes. An art course can no more leave it out- at least in a secular school- and stay accredited, than a history major can leave out Greece and Rome.

I can't justify it myself even though we are allowing our kid to finish art school, but it reminds me of all the evolutionary theory I had to sit through to get my science degree.

You can say go to a Christian art school with no nudes......but dear son has been able to live at home the last two years and go to church with us every Sunday and to his midweek bible study, and talk to his Dad about all sorts of theological things. I wouldn't trade that, not even for models in a bathing suit in one course.

Not disgreeing with you Tim, just thinking it through myself........
 
The art of this world is tainted with the fallenness of it's creators. We all remember that the 'classics' of the 20th century in lit were overwhelmingly sodomite and godless. Hemingway and Faulkner were flaming sodomites, and they were preceded by Whitman and Wilde. The worldlings are enamored of such filth. Which is why the visual arts have for just as long and just as thoroughly been enthralled with shamelessness. Once again, we have been so affected by worldly wisdom that something that 200 years ago would have been rejected out of hand by our forebears, some among us are wanting to accept.
 
TimV said:
Let's reduce this. But not to the point of deconstructionism.

Shannon is hot. Some guys paid her to take off her clothes. They wanted to see her naked. Yes, but that's Christian. Shannon is a nice Christian girl. I'm sure Mason's wife did the same thing.....Wait!!! That would be insulting!!! Or wouldn't it?????

Mason, would you be happy if your wife stripped naked so a bunch of people could paint her?

How many of the guys here would like if if their women stripped naked so people could paint or photo them?

So as not to be sexist (after all, Mason supports Tim Keller, the guy who won't ordain deacons even though his church constitution orders him to, so as not to offend women) would any of the women reading this strip naked so some people (children, parents, neighbors, etc..) would have the opportunity to paint or photograph a nubile woman?
Click to expand...

I really hesitate to answer this, because I didn't really want to get involved, but since you seem to think that there's no Christian that would do this...

First of all, I think what Mason shared from the session he went to was extremely helpful in thinking about this issue, particularly this bit:

. Specifically addressing the issue of nudity, they made the point that any nudity in the arts that is intended to arouse is sinful. However, nudity in itself isn't wrong so long as it doesn't violate one's conscience, is in an appropriate context, and ultimately brings glory to God.
Click to expand...

I have reformed Christian friends that have modeled nude for an art class (while in college) and I would do it given the right situation. Its a personal decision and one that goes beyond many people's comfort levels, which is completely understandable. As well, one doesn't do this in front of people they know - more for those people's sake than their own. Its difficult for an artist to distance themselves if they know the model.

Obviously, if one's spouse was uncomfortable with this (again, completely reasonable) than you wouldn't do it out of respect for them.

So, there you have it. I understand that people find nudity in art uncomfortable. And that's fine, especially given our culture. This is most definitely an area of Christian liberty, and its not an issue I would ever force with someone. I have other hills to die on. But I do wish we didn't have to reduce ourselves to calling nude models strippers or assuming that artists are lasciviously staring at the models. I don't think anyone that's been to art school (or knows an artist) would think that the case.

That's all. I'm taking a little break from the PB in the next week, so please don't be offended if I do not respond further. I'm not being rude or ignoring, I'm just not online!
 
Kathleen, the model in the OP WAS a stripper, and there is a reason for that. Is it so important to be urbane and cosmopolitan that common sense gets tossed out the window? What would your father have to say about you posing nude? If he didn't forbid you, he ought to have his head examined. I have 3 daughters. They will never engage in such shameless activity. I'd have to be dead or incarcerated first.
 
Augusta said:
Art is not a virtue or necessary to life such that you can just ignore the commands of God. Just because man has created this discipline called art, and man-made rules for it, does not give men cause to just ignore God the ultimate rule maker. Nothing trumps God, not even art.
Click to expand...

Which command of God is being broken by either posing nude or drawing a nude model?

TimV said:
Let's reduce this. But not to the point of deconstructionism.

Shannon is hot. Some guys paid her to take off her clothes. They wanted to see her naked. Yes, but that's Christian. Shannon is a nice Christian girl. I'm sure Mason's wife did the same thing.....Wait!!! That would be insulting!!! Or wouldn't it?????

Mason, would you be happy if your wife stripped naked so a bunch of people could paint her?

How many of the guys here would like if if their women stripped naked so people could paint or photo them?

So as not to be sexist (after all, Mason supports Tim Keller, the guy who won't ordain deacons even though his church constitution orders him to, so as not to offend women) would any of the women reading this strip naked so some people (children, parents, neighbors, etc..) would have the opportunity to paint or photograph a nubile woman?
Click to expand...

Tim, I would have no problem whatsoever if my wife posed nude for art. Stripping is a different story - the intent is to arouse. But posing for a serious art class? I wouldn't have a problem at all and would love to see how an artist renders her. I don't have a daughter (yet), but if she wanted to pose nude for artists, I would support her. And I would be fine with my children of either sex drawing/painting nude models.

Montanablue said:
I really hesitate to answer this, because I didn't really want to get involved, but since you seem to think that there's no Christian that would do this...

First of all, I think what Mason shared from the session he went to was extremely helpful in thinking about this issue, particularly this bit:

. Specifically addressing the issue of nudity, they made the point that any nudity in the arts that is intended to arouse is sinful. However, nudity in itself isn't wrong so long as it doesn't violate one's conscience, is in an appropriate context, and ultimately brings glory to God.
Click to expand...

I have reformed Christian friends that have modeled nude for an art class (while in college) and I would do it given the right situation. Its a personal decision and one that goes beyond many people's comfort levels, which is completely understandable. As well, one doesn't do this in front of people they know - more for those people's sake than their own. Its difficult for an artist to distance themselves if they know the model.

Obviously, if one's spouse was uncomfortable with this (again, completely reasonable) than you wouldn't do it out of respect for them.

So, there you have it. I understand that people find nudity in art uncomfortable. And that's fine, especially given our culture. This is most definitely an area of Christian liberty, and its not an issue I would ever force with someone. I have other hills to die on. But I do wish we didn't have to reduce ourselves to calling nude models strippers or assuming that artists are lasciviously staring at the models. I don't think anyone that's been to art school (or knows an artist) would think that the case.

That's all. I'm taking a little break from the PB in the next week, so please don't be offended if I do not respond further. I'm not being rude or ignoring, I'm just not online!
Click to expand...

Kathleen, excellent post! I agree completely.
 
It looks like this issue is pretty much well taken care of, but I'd just like to add that I was an Art major in college. I was required to draw many nude people. Not once did I ever lust after the model. This could be, in part, because most models were very "unattractive"... that may have been on purpose...
Anyway, when I first read the OP I thought Lynnie was overreacting. But I do remember how many people (friends & family) were openly surprised that I was drawing naked people...
But as Mason has said, it's totally different in a class setting. I don't know how to explain it better. It's just that the students are more interested in learning the form rather than anything else. Art students want to improve their skills, and once this super important part of the learning process is mastered, the student is able to then take that knowledge and create some of the most beautiful art in the world... and most of that is with clothed people.
When I was in school we learned to draw the skeleton first, btw. Once we knew where all the bones went, we added flesh. After that, we added clothes.

The only time I ever walked out of a class is when all of us students were sitting at our easels waiting for the model to arrive (who as late). And when she finally did arrive, I recognized her immediately. She was a friend of mine from my high-school youth group at church. It had been like 5 years since I'd seen her, but I didn't want to see my friend naked, so I gathered my stuff and snuck out the back.
 
Brad,

My father would not have a problem with it. If he did, I would probably not do it - not because I think its sinful, but out of respect for him. Like I said, this isn't a hill I'd die on and if it was going to be a stumbling block to someone, I wouldn't do it. In our culture, it requires discernment.

I'm the farthest from urbane that you can get. I live in the middle of nowhere. Really. And I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
 
So I have an unbelieving acquaintance who used to frequent a nudist colony with his wife and young daughter. They would make pretenses of 'not noticing' the nudity of their fellow campers so as to demonstrate their sophistication. Of course, the affect on their daughter was devastating, the man hasn't seen her in probably 10 years. This is the same asininity that motivates people to call nude pictures 'art', when in reality it is just blatant shamelessness. The world has said it is haute couture, and therefore acceptable, and the sycophant within us wants to agree so as to not appear prudish and 'old guard'. Funny that we see the same people trending that direction on this subject who do the same with subjects like deaconesses and so forth. Maybe it should not be a surprise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Art
Replies
5
Views
2K
turmeric
turmeric
T
  • Locked
Secular Art and Entertainment
Replies
1
Views
2K
Scottish Lass
Scottish Lass
sojourner
  • Locked
Reformed Art
Replies
3
Views
2K
sojourner
sojourner
AltogetherLovely
  • Locked
Homeschool Art Lessons
Replies
12
Views
2K
lynnie
L
R
  • Locked
Abortion as "art"
Replies
23
Views
3K
DMcFadden
DMcFadden
Back
Top