Is my hobby and sidejob sinful?

[Nithavela]

I’m a digital artist and pretty decent at drawing. I’ve taken commisions from to draw whatever they request. A lot of those drawings have been lewd in nature and, at times, even inappropriate contentographic.

Is this bad?

Your faith icon says you're an atheist. Why do you care if it's sinfull?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I’m a digital artist and pretty decent at drawing. I’ve taken commisions from to draw whatever they request. A lot of those drawings have been lewd in nature and, at times, even inappropriate contentographic.

Is this bad?

Ultimately you're answerable to your own conscience on that.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GibbaWithAttitude]

Your faith icon says you're an atheist. Why do you care if it's sinfull?

Even though I might be an atheist, I’m still interested in the religion and how it can be interpreted and taught out.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Even though I might be an atheist, I’m still interested in the religion and how it can be interpreted and taught out.

Most Christians probably won't have any problem with nude art, especially considering how the naked human form has been a major component of art for centuries. Though would regard outright lewd or inappropriate contentographic content as quite distasteful.

My argument is simply that, as far as it comes to what you draw as part of your commissions as an artist is ultimately up to you. It's up to your conscience and what you find acceptable or not.

It's not my job or responsibility to tell you what you can or cannot draw. The question of sinfulness would itself likely be far more complicated, but in a lot of ways not entirely relevant since you aren't a Christian. I'm not going to judge you on what you do or do not draw--that's between you and your conscience.

If you were a Christian I would also say mostly the same thing--that it's between you and your conscience.

The problem with attempting to make moral pronouncements about art is that art is a fundamentally subjective thing. And what I might personally find objectionable or distasteful does not necessarily translate as anything more than my own subjective responses to certain things. And what may or may not be objectionable or distasteful to me doesn't have anything to do with whether it contains sexually explicit content or not; there are plenty of forms of art that aren't explicit by any stretch of the imagination that I may not care much for.

My moral concerns should instead be largely concentrated on the just treatment of people, not what someone draws or paints.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mathetes66]

I Timothy 1:19-21 Timothy, my child, I entrust you with this command in keeping with the previous prophecies about you, so that by them you may fight the good fight, holding faith & a good conscience, which some, having cast away, have caused a shipwreck concerning the faith. Among them are Hymenaeus & Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

Conscience is an important issue.

I Cor 10:27-29 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s & the fullness thereof. If an unbeliever invites you to a meal & you want to go, eat anything set before you without raising questions of conscience.

But if someone tells you, “This food was offered to idols,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who told you & for the sake of conscience--it might not be a matter of conscience for you, but it is for the other person. For why is it that my liberty is judged by another's conscience?

If I partake in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh absolutely! If you don't want a circular argument, then how about a fork-in-the-road argument?

The thing the artist has to do is to make a positive decision for themselves first.
Simply put, the artist has a clear choice here: continue on down the road that they are currently on, or else choose a different road.

In order to choose which road to take, they have to decide what outcome- what product- they want from their talent, and the price that they will pay in order to achieve that.
We're talking about two different directions, each with it's own points and drawbacks.

Much better. That is an actual argument, whereas a circular argument - despite the name - is not.

 

[GibbaWithAttitude]

I did not expect this question to blow up like this, hehe...

 

[jayem]

If you're not religious, then sin is an irrelevant concept.

The issues are whether your art is skillfully or poorly done and shows good taste or bad taste.

 

[Noxot]

Circular arguments, such as you have used here, are rarely convincing. Perhaps you have a more effective, fallacy free, way of presenting your case.

 

[Noxot]

What about sinning against Art itself? Or does it matter what you make art to be in this world?

 

[Dave-W]

What about sinning against Art itself?

Who is Art? And why are you calling him an "it?"

 

[usexpat97]

Art that serves no purpose except to stir up lust doesn't do anybody any good; except maybe lust profiteers. Yeah, it's bad. Many artists claim to use nudity for other purposes, and I take their word for it. I'm no expert on visual arts, though, and I really don't see it.

 

[Ricky M]

Your faith icon says you're an atheist. Why do you care if it's sinfull?

Apparently the Holy Spirit is wooing him

 

[Nithavela]

Apparently the Holy Spirit is wooing him

Well, he'll have to do his wooing somewhere else, considering he's gotten himself banned after 8 post.

Quite an achievement.

 

[Noxot]

Who is Art? And why are you calling him an "it?"

It's a personification. If art is a kind of high ideal then you can miss the mark. Here is an example of what I'm trying to Express about dwelling in the heights of Art, which is in heaven:

There are classy wine tasters who don't care so much about the wine but rather they care about their status as a "classy wine taster". This is shown when a counterfeit winemaker makes millions off of people and the wine tasters go by their knowledge of what good wine appears to be rather than actually tasting the wine and enjoying it and finding the value inherit in it. so those wine tasters will taste the counterfeit wine but know deep down that something is wrong and yet still say it's a fine wine.

It's kind of like those snobby rich people that pay millions for an ugly blue painting. Many artists have suffered for being artists and only later did the world see the value that they created. It's not good to suppress creativity for the sake of the economy. obviously sometimes people have to in order to survive.

 

[Ricky M]

Well, he'll have to do his wooing somewhere else, considering he's gotten himself banned after 8 post.

Quite an achievement.

I missed the post where he laughed about his thread blowing up, yeah that's not cool. Luckily for us the Holy Spirit will woo us wherever we are! And being new here, where does it say he was banned?

 

[Nithavela]

It's kind of like those snobby rich people that pay millions for an ugly blue painting.

That's actually money laundering.

 

[Nithavela]

I missed the post where he laughed about his thread blowing up, yeah that's not cool. Luckily for us the Holy Spirit will woo us wherever we are! And being new here, where does it say he was banned?

His nickname is yellow.

 

[Noxot]

That's actually money laundering.

Lol finally it makes sense.

 

[Sketcher]

I’m a digital artist and pretty decent at drawing. I’ve taken commisions from to draw whatever they request. A lot of those drawings have been lewd in nature and, at times, even inappropriate contentographic.

Is this bad?

If it's inappropriate contentographic, I would not do it because of my responsibilities as a Christian (Luke 17:1-2).