Bad taste or not?

[Washington]

I just came across a site with very professional (artful) nude studies, some of which were obviously taken in a church sanctuary (don't bother asking for a link). The site gave no indication why the photos were taken there, or for any of the other locations used for that matter.

Wrong thing to do or not? If so, why, exactly?

 

[truthshift]

One has to assume that they were allowed into the church and did not force entry. I don't see any problem with it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sounds like quite a good photoshoot. Art which deliberately flaunts social taboo is likely to be good art.

 

[Nathan45]

Yes and No, because you asked two questions:

Bad taste or not?

Yes.

Wrong thing to do or not?

I don't see anything wrong with it from an ethical perspective. I just think it's bad taste to do a nude shot in a church, since half the point is to offend people.

 

[Pliny the Elder]

I do not see it as bad taste, socially unacceptable to some people maybe but not to me.

 

[Alizera]

I do not see it as bad taste, socially unacceptable to some people maybe but not to me.

I agree with you completely.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Assuming, as truthshift said, that they got permission to shoot in the church, I see nothing wrong with it. There are some very tasteful nude photographs, paintings, and sculptures by many different skilled artists. I see nothing wrong with portraying the naked human form.

So long as, of course, it isn't done in this thread. *wink*

 

[Bombila]

Many churches have been closed and the buildings sold, so, taste aside, it may not have been an active church. There's a large church in Halifax which belongs to a private individual. He lives in one section and rents the rest out for small theatre productions, benefits, special parties, music presentations and so on. It's a very nice space that serves a niche.

 

[Beanieboy]

If you see a lot of religious work, like Michealangelo's David, it's full on frontal nudity, so if it is done artfully, I don't really see it much different than what was done in the Renassaince.

 

[Nathan45]

If you see a lot of religious work, like Michealangelo's David, it's full on frontal nudity

Well, the difference between a naked statue and a naked person is that Michelangelo had to meticulously and delicately craft David out of stone, and it couldn't have been easy to do. He had the image of David built in his head before he spent laborious hours chiseling him out of stone one spec at a time. Moreover, when we look at the statue of David we're not seeing a real person we're seeing Michelangelo's imagination. (edit: ok, fine... he probably used a model for the statue... but the statue certainly didn't look exactly like the model and still a tough job)

Whereas, whoever did this porn shoot, simply needed 1) a camera. 2) an attractive woman willing to take her clothes off for money.

This isn't terribly impressive art, here.

, so if it is done artfully, I don't really see it much different than what was done in the Renassaince.

you say "if it is done artfully". But we're talking about porn here: it's artistic, insofar as the church is artistic and the woman is attractive.

Sure, there's some "art" involved in deciding how she should pose or what angle to go after, but it's mostly borrowing the already existing natural beauty of the woman and the already existing architecture of the church.

Now, does this qualify as tasteful art? It seems to me that the whole reason to do it in a church is to raise eyebrows, to offend people who think that pornography is wrong or that a church is sacred, not that i think either.

As a political statement it also fails, in my opinion, because pornography is already very legal and common so this to me comes off more as the victor rubbing it in.

I don't think this qualifies as tasteful art. I'm not saying i wouldn't look (i may know what website you're talking about, lol), i just don't think it's particularly tasteful to do a nude shoot in a church.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I just came across a site with very professional (artful) nude studies, some of which were obviously taken in a church sanctuary (don't bother asking for a link). The site gave no indication why the photos were taken there, or for any of the other locations used for that matter.

Wrong thing to do or not? If so, why, exactly?

The answer would depend on several issues that you havent provided.

The bolded portion above would need to be defined in order to give a response on whether or not it was ethical.

 

[Washington]

Whereas, whoever did this porn shoot, simply needed 1) a camera. 2) an attractive woman willing to take her clothes off for money.

So artful nude studies are porn. Gotcha.

This isn't terribly impressive art, here.

You saw it too? Care to PM me with the url so I can confirm this?

you say "if it is done artfully". But we're talking about porn here: it's artistic, insofar as the church is artistic and the woman is attractive.

Who's this "we" you're talking about. You're the only one who's mentioned porn.

Sure, there's some "art" involved in deciding how she should pose or what angle to go after, but it's mostly borrowing the already existing natural beauty of the woman and the already existing architecture of the church.

Now, does this qualify as tasteful art? It seems to me that the whole reason to do it in a church is to raise eyebrows, to offend people who think that pornography is wrong or that a church is sacred, not that i think either.

As a political statement it also fails, in my opinion, because pornography is already very legal and common so this to me comes off more as the victor rubbing it in.

Err, Excuse me, but I think you've got your panties all in a bunch here and the china is about start flying around the room. I'll come back later.

 

[Washington]

The answer would depend on several issues that you havent provided.

The bolded portion above would need to be defined in order to give a response on whether or not it was ethical.

You think there's an ethical component here? What do you feel it is?

 

[Angel4Truth]

You think there's an ethical component here? What do you feel it is?

I said it cannot be answered because you didnt provide enough information. Could there be? Sure - they could have broken into a church for all I know and paid a hooker to pose for them or they could have gotten their kicks doing nudes in church knowing they werent suppose to... or they could have created a church setting much like a play set or even used an abandoned church which is their perogative.

Who knows if what you have stated is art vs porn either just because you think it is?

Art is highly subjective.

Anyway see what i mean? There is way too little information provided and this forum is about ethics and morality isnt it? But neither can be determined from what youve given.

 

[Nathan45]

Err, Excuse me, but I think you've got your panties all in a bunch here and the china is about start flying around the room. I'll come back later.

seems to me like you're still here, since you're still posting

anyway by "artful nude studies" i assume you mean naked women (or men) being photographed in a way you consider "artful". Or maybe you're talking about something else entirely.

 

[Washington]

I said it cannot be answered because you didnt provide enough information.

Yes, I know. And you also indicated that " a response on whether or not it was ethical." would be appropriate.

they could have broken into a church for all I know and paid a hooker to pose for them or they could have gotten their kicks doing nudes in church knowing they werent suppose to... or they could have created a church setting much like a play set or even used an abandoned church which is their perogative.

So, it isn't the location as such that is bothersome but how that location may have been obtained. It isn't the appearance of the figure in the setting that's so much of a concern but whether or not the figure belongs to a hooker or not. It isn't about the final image so much as it's about whether or not everyone had fun or not during the shoot. And it's even a concern that it may not have been a real church at all, but just a set. Gotta say, you do have some odd concerns, A4T.

Who knows if what you have stated is art vs porn either just because you think it is?

Okay, if proof is absolutely required before you can form an opinion about a particular issue, why not answer the OP question as a hypothetical. You can play Let's Pretend. Lacking the proof you require, pretend that what I described actually took place: that it was all on the up-and-up, in a real church, perfectly innocent, and absolutely joyless. AND, that whatever YOUR perception of artful maybe, it's exactly the same as mine, so you can be assured that whatever I consider artful, so would you. Okay?

So, good friend Angel4Truth, whatcha think? Bad taste or not? Wrong thing to do or not? If so, why, exactly?

seems to me like you're still here, since you're still posting

Calmed down a bit have you. Good. The coming back was only in reference to you.

anyway by "artful nude studies" i assume you mean naked women (or men) being photographed in a way you consider "artful". Or maybe you're talking about something else entirely.

Nope, that's exactly what I meant. Naked women photographed in a way I consider artful. Good subjects. Good poses. Good composition. Good lighting. Good exposure. Photos done with a lot of consideration for those elements that typically define good art.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes, I know. And you also indicated that " a response on whether or not it was ethical." would be appropriate.



So, it isn't the location as such that is bothersome but how that location may have been obtained. It isn't the appearance of the figure in the setting that's so much of a concern but whether or not the figure belongs to a hooker or not. It isn't about the final image so much as it's about whether or not everyone had fun or not during the shoot. And it's even a concern that it may not have been a real church at all, but just a set. Gotta say, you do have some odd concerns, A4T.




Okay, if proof is absolutely required before you can form an opinion about a particular issue, why not answer the OP question as a hypothetical. You can play Let's Pretend. Lacking the proof you require, pretend that what I described actually took place: that it was all on the up-and-up, in a real church, perfectly innocent, and absolutely joyless. AND, that whatever YOUR perception of artful maybe, it's exactly the same as mine, so you can be assured that whatever I consider artful, so would you. Okay?

So, good friend Angel4Truth, whatcha think? Bad taste or not? Wrong thing to do or not? If so, why, exactly?

The things i said above were not my concerns - they were examples of how they could or couldnt be ethical issues because you asked how that could play into it.

Now to the rest - without knowing the intent of the artist I still couldnt say if it was bad taste or not. Were they depicting genesis and thats why the church setting ? who knows.

 

[Nathan45]

Calmed down a bit have you. Good.

Projection...

Nope, that's exactly what I meant. Naked women photographed in a way I consider artful. Good subjects. Good poses. Good composition. Good lighting. Good exposure. Photos done with a lot of consideration for those elements that typically define good art.

If you're going to define pornography and art as mutually exclusive, then the difference between art and pornography is entirely subjective. Just sayin'.

 

[fivepointTULIP]

Personally, it would depend on the image to me. If it were, say, a nude bowed down before the altar in bareness and humility before the Lord, especially if genitalia are not the focus- I would consider it high art and very classy. If it were a cheap, taboo-focused or explicit image, I would consider it tasteless.

 

[Pliny the Elder]

Personally, it would depend on the image to me. If it were, say, a nude bowed down before the altar in bareness and humility before the Lord, especially if genitalia are not the focus- I would consider it high art and very classy. If it were a cheap, taboo-focused or explicit image, I would consider it tasteless.

That is just plain creepy and very disturbing.