Christian Artists of Nudity, please address this text

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Although I doubt that public and quasi-public nudity are always bad (e.g. Isaiah, or any painting that uses nudity to depict shame or defeat, etc.), based on the text below I believe that it's a distortion to use nudity in art if the intent is to portray beauty.

Specifically, consider how the text below uses "unpresentable parts." It doesn't say reproductive organs, but I can't think of a more applicable area.

Artists, how do you deal with this text?

(NKJV)
1Co 12:23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty,
1Co 12:24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it,
 

JIMINZ

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2017
6,600
2,358
79
Southern Ga.
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Although I doubt that public and quasi-public nudity are always bad (e.g. Isaiah, or any painting that uses nudity to depict shame or defeat, etc.), based on the text below I believe that it's a distortion to use nudity in art if the intent is to portray beauty.

Specifically, consider how the text below uses "unpresentable parts." It doesn't say reproductive organs, but I can't think of a more applicable area.

Artists, how do you deal with this text?

(NKJV)
1Co 12:23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty,
1Co 12:24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it,


You really honestly do not know nor understand what those verses taken out of Context are speaking of? :scratch:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rocknanchor
Upvote 0

LovebirdsFlying

My husband drew this cartoon of me.
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
Supporter
Aug 13, 2007
28,726
4,216
59
Washington (the state)
✟832,583.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My take: Certain body parts are meant to be "honored," meaning they aren't for public display. We're not covering them up because they're ugly and we're ashamed of them. We are covering them up because only a privileged few get to look at them.

This said, I understand an artist's need to practice the craft by drawing/painting nudes. It is an exercise in proportion. Making a nude look realistic rather than cartoonish would be very difficult. I wouldn't have a problem with nudity tastefully done. For example, Michelangelo's David and the Sistine Chapel. Or, depictions of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, with shrubbery and/or animals in strategic places.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SkyWriting
Upvote 0

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
We're not covering them up because they're ugly and we're ashamed of them. We are covering them up because only a privileged few get to look at them.

I did state public and quasi-public nudity, which is the end result of paintings and etc.
 
Upvote 0

LovebirdsFlying

My husband drew this cartoon of me.
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
Supporter
Aug 13, 2007
28,726
4,216
59
Washington (the state)
✟832,583.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I did state public and quasi-public nudity, which is the end result of paintings and etc.
Which is why the distinction between Michelangelo's David, and inappropriate contentography. The first is meant to be high quality art, and the second is designed to deliberately provoke certain desires. Even with the full nudity of the original statue, as opposed to replicas where he's covered with a fig leaf or something, the audience is meant to think "wow, how detailed" rather than "ooh la la."

I don't think the passage you quote is saying those parts should never be seen by others, as if there is something inherently wrong with them. I believe it only means that we should be careful when and how they're depicted. As is, Michelangelo's David is not obscene. If someone were to make a few changes to it that I had probably better not describe, it would be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkyWriting
Upvote 0

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Which is why the distinction between Michelangelo's David, and inappropriate contentography. The first is meant to be high quality art, and the second is designed to deliberately provoke certain desires. Even with the full nudity of the original statue, as opposed to replicas where he's covered with a fig leaf or something, the audience is meant to think "wow, how detailed" rather than "ooh la la."

I don't think the passage you quote is saying those parts should never be seen by others, as if there is something inherently wrong with them. I believe it only means that we should be careful when and how they're depicted. As is, Michelangelo's David is not obscene. If someone were to make a few changes to it that I had probably better not describe, it would be.

I don't follow how inappropriate contentography entered the conversation, or how it relates to the text. Would you clarify?

I'll also clarify: I am not implying that I think 1Co 10 is about inappropriate content.
 
Upvote 0

LovebirdsFlying

My husband drew this cartoon of me.
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
Supporter
Aug 13, 2007
28,726
4,216
59
Washington (the state)
✟832,583.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I suppose I'm missing your point, for which I apologize.

Some people would consider any and all public nudity or near-nudity to *be* inappropriate contentography, which is why I made the distinction. Some people feel similarly about televised warm-weather sports such as swimming, diving, gymnastics, track running, or beach volleyball, where the attire can be quite skimpy and form-fitting. I'm only saying I don't believe watching or participating in those activities is necessarily un-Christian, based on 1st Cor. 12:23-24.

Are you saying that the Bible passage would exclude any and all public nudity, or near-nudity?
 
Upvote 0

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I suppose I'm missing your point, for which I apologize.

Some people would consider any and all public nudity or near-nudity to *be* inappropriate contentography, which is why I made the distinction. Some people feel similarly about televised warm-weather sports such as swimming, diving, gymnastics, track running, or beach volleyball, where the attire can be quite skimpy and form-fitting. I'm only saying I don't believe watching or participating in those activities is necessarily un-Christian, based on 1st Cor. 12:23-24.

Are you saying that the Bible passage would exclude any and all public nudity, or near-nudity?

The text states that there are unpresentable parts. I'd say that includes at least, and probably only, the reproductive organs.

I can think of a few reasons they may be unpresentable: because it's morally inappropriate, because they risk shaming us (e.g. unwanted erection), or because they're aesthetically unpleasing.

It could be any of those reasons, it could be a different one entirely. But for some reason, they're unpresentable.

So then, to depict them in art in a way that says "this is presentable," e.g. art aimed at beauty, is to disagree with Paul that they're unpresentable.

You could use them in art to depict shame, because then you're using their unpresentableness to emphasize something negative. That would be theme-appropriate.

... But, how can you use them to depict beauty, or strength, or any similar idea, without running contrary to the text?
 
Upvote 0

LovebirdsFlying

My husband drew this cartoon of me.
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
Supporter
Aug 13, 2007
28,726
4,216
59
Washington (the state)
✟832,583.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Simply put, because I'm not entirely sure it's the *immediately visible exterior* that is unpresentable.

To go into further detail about what I mean would be too graphic for CF, I'm afraid.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rocknanchor

Continue Well 2 John 9
Supporter
Jan 27, 2009
5,846
8,319
Notre Dame, IN
✟979,041.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You really honestly do not know nor understand what those verses taken out of Context are speaking of? :scratch:
Simply put, because I'm not entirely sure it's the *immediately visible exterior* that is unpresentable.
Right, elementary ol-boy,

The idea is, that, in like manner, we should not despise or
disregard those members of the church who are of lower rank,
or who are less favored than others with spiritual endowments.


-Barnes​

If only a little Unity and Diversity in the Body context for the present.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JIMINZ
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't follow how inappropriate contentography entered the conversation, or how it relates to the text. Would you clarify?
I'll also clarify: I am not implying that I think 1Co 10 is about inappropriate content.


It's not a mystery to anyone that nudity is a topic that relates to inappropriate contentography.
 
Upvote 0

bèlla

❤️
Supporter
Jan 16, 2019
20,479
17,632
USA
✟932,974.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have never responded to artistic representations of nudity in a carnal manner. I appreciate their aesthetic and creative beauty.

inappropriate contentography is not the same. It depicts the individual engaging with genitalia and other organs in a sensual fashion. The mediums differ as does the intent. They are meant to provoke different responses from the viewer.
 
Upvote 0

blackhole

Active Member
Apr 5, 2019
325
117
34
South Dakota
✟20,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Simply put, because I'm not entirely sure it's the *immediately visible exterior* that is unpresentable.

To go into further detail about what I mean would be too graphic for CF, I'm afraid.

On the one hand, I now agree with you. The text speaks about us bestowing honor on less honorable parts, but it shows that God composed the body in a way that our unpresentable parts (already) have greater modesty. So, it seems to speaking about internal organs (e.g. lungs).

On the other hand, none of what I said is too graphic for CF, so I must be missing what you're thinking. Feel free to message me.
 
Upvote 0

Phil W

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2019
3,187
675
69
Mesa, Az
✟67,340.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Although I doubt that public and quasi-public nudity are always bad (e.g. Isaiah, or any painting that uses nudity to depict shame or defeat, etc.), based on the text below I believe that it's a distortion to use nudity in art if the intent is to portray beauty.

Specifically, consider how the text below uses "unpresentable parts." It doesn't say reproductive organs, but I can't think of a more applicable area.

Artists, how do you deal with this text?

(NKJV)
1Co 12:23 And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty,
1Co 12:24 but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it,
The "body" in question is Jesus Christ-the church.
We are members of that body..."For we are members or His body, of His flesh and of His bones"...(Eph 5:30)
Those "parts" that are less honorable are the newest members of the church. The least knowledgeable of scripture.

Christians don't make a profit on the private bodies of others, as they are the bodies of their spouses only and not for public display.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Although I doubt that public and quasi-public nudity are always bad
.... do you doubt that graven images, and images forbidden by Scripture, are always bad/ sinful/ forbidden ?

(not to derail the thread, so for outside the forum research only , but it takes quite a bit of searching for the truth Biblically and historically to find the truth about this when the simple reading of Scripture is not sufficient... )
 
Upvote 0