Nudity in art

[jay_swift]

I couldn't draw a woman in the nude without lusting at LEAST a little bit. I would cringe if I had to draw a man in the nude. If you are different, then maybe its not a sin for you, but most of this is going on inside your head... so its tough for anyone to tell you its a sin.

 

[violetstar]

I love and I do believe nudity is one of the most beautiful thing, too me it represent purity and innocence, as long as their is no sexual reference, this type of art is find, I am thinking of one day of getting a painting like this of myself.

 

[kau2u]

I paint, draw and play around with art [plus buy any art book I find a 2nd hand stores]. I don't have a problem looking at nudity in art. The human body is wonderfully crafted. I think it's the 'lookers' intent that dictates if it is wrong or not. And God knows our hearts.

Having said all that, I'm a prude about my own body. And wish I could be more open--but society, lessons, and chruches have taught me that it shouldn't be seen, might not be appreciated, could be lusted over and it'd be my fault. So I hide it behind big shirts and skirts.

But I love nudity in art. Love Ruben's women and Wyeth's mistress sitting in the sun.

 

[making me a bord join it]

Lol Lol

 

[Petercurious]

I paint, draw and play around with art [plus buy any art book I find a 2nd hand stores]. I don't have a problem looking at nudity in art.

But I love nudity in art. Love Ruben's women and Wyeth's mistress sitting in the sun.

Don't feel bad! I love the sound of your enthusiasm for art. I really enjoy art, like life drawing & appreciate nudes (although not so much Rubens - and not that familiar with Wyeth)

But, I'm also glad you don't display your body in a way that I as a male am driven mad by! It shows love & concern for my spiritual well/being.

If we chose to go to an art gallery & look at some nudes we have made a choice about nudity in art - & presumably can cope with it. But the choice is not the same where an attractive woman walks down the street provocatively dressed.

The absence of clothes in a painting can often be less provocative than the partially clothed out & about. it's all in the context!!

 

[paradigm man]

As a former nude model, I often ponder this point:

When drawing nudes, unless you are drawing your own spouse, before you is someone who either is married or may eventually get married. Do we have any business satisfying our eyes with this person's body? How would we feel if our own spouse was exposed in this way to other people? Would it not be good to know that their body was saved for you alone?

"May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
A loving doe, a graceful deer - may her breast satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.
Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?"

(Proverbs 5:18-20, NIV)

How do you feel about drawing people in the nude? Is it ok since you're not lusting after the person?

 

[paradigm man]

As a former nude model, I also ponder this point:

Why is it that so many christians unopposed to drawing nudes are so modest about their own bodies? They don't mind drawing nudes, but they would never be a nude. Is there a double standard at work? I run across this mentality all the time from christians unopposed to drawing nudes. If they cry modesty, then why their modesty and not the model's modesty? Could it be that they hold themselves to a higher moral standard than they hold the models to? Incidently, the nudes they are drawing are almost always not christians, so you have christians drawing nude non-christians. HHHhhmm .

I've wondered about this a lot.

I know that the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and shouldn't be gawked at and often feel guilty for looking at pieces of art that has nudity in it. So my questions:

How do you feel about drawing people in the nude? Is it ok since you're not lusting after the person?

 

[fleveque]

It's that old aphorism concerning the eye of the beholder. It's simple: if nudity induces lust, don't--> look at/draw/photograph the unadorned human body. If you can see beyond lust luster, and are able to attain objectivity, nudity per se should not be a bother. What is wrong, however, is the constant exploitation of sensual (vs. sensuous) images that ply the visual media.

Although I really don't much appreciate nudism as a lifestyle, I rather believe that the true-believers among this bunch have it right.

 

[paradigm man]

Nudity is forced upon many art students because figure drawing (drawing nudes) is required for many art degrees. Its immoral for colleges/universities to force nudity upon art students, especially if a student does strugge with lust. One of the reasons I stopped nude modelling is because I didn't want to be associated with a system that imposed nudity on students.

if nudity induces lust, don't--> look at/draw/photograph the unadorned human body. If you can see beyond lust luster, and are able to attain objectivity, nudity per se should not be a bother.

 

[artybloke]

You can't learn to draw the human figure if you can't draw them nude. It's the absolute bottom line ( ) of Western art training from the middle ages on. You could be a landascape artist, which is I guess why the prudish British never did have any good figurative artists, except Blake and these days, Lucien Freud. Though I'd have thought most art colleges these days would be more into video techniques....

 

[tambora]

You make an excellent observation, Paradigm Man. The vast majority of christians unopposed to drawing nudes would never pose nude themselves. As a former figure drawing teacher, I can attest to the fact that the vast majority (99%) of nude models aren't christians, so christians who draw nudes are drawing nude unbelievers. It's doubtful if drawing nudes could exist without the unbelieving population willing to disrobe for art classes.

As a former nude model, I also ponder this point:

Why is it that so many christians unopposed to drawing nudes are so modest about their own bodies? They don't mind drawing nudes, but they would never be a nude. Is there a double standard at work? I run across this mentality all the time from christians unopposed to drawing nudes. If they cry modesty, then why their modesty and not the model's modesty? Could it be that they hold themselves to a higher moral standard than they hold the models to? Incidently, the nudes they are drawing are almost always not christians, so you have christians drawing nude non-christians. HHHhhmm .

 

[tambora]

I suspect that most christians unopposed to drawing nudes would object to having their spouse/fiancee pose nude for art classes. Your spouse/fiancee but not mine. Thanx for another excellent observation.

As a former nude model, I often ponder this point:

When drawing nudes, unless you are drawing your own spouse, before you is someone who either is married or may eventually get married. Do we have any business satisfying our eyes with this person's body? How would we feel if our own spouse was exposed in this way to other people? Would it not be good to know that their body was saved for you alone?

"May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
A loving doe, a graceful deer - may her breast satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.
Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?"

(Proverbs 5:18-20, NIV)

 

[fleveque]

There are manniquins on the market today that are well articulated and can be 'posed' so as to simulate much of what a human model is able to do in this regard, although plastic and metal dummies cannot respond to the artist's(s) request to make subtle bodyily shifts. Perhaps these devices would well serve art class beginners who wish to acquire the skills needed to draw, paint or sculpt the human form whether clothed or unclothed.

I am rather surprised that this thread is still ticking. I guess it must be an engrossing topic and one for which a satisfactory resolution may not be possible, not possible simply because nudity in art often does indeed pose a serious moral challenge even when intentions are noble and chaste. I do not find artful nudity to be an inducer of lust or lustful ideation and have worked with unadorned models for many years without an untoward thought.

 

[ticoforchrist]

The reason this thread is still ticking is because some excellent observations have been put forth. Paradigm Man, the former nude model, has contributed much to this thread. He knows the risk, hazards, etc of nude modelling. He makes an excellent point when he states that most christians unopposed to drawing nudes would never pose nude themselves, nor would they allow their spouses or fiancees to pose nude.

There are manniquins on the market today that are well articulated and can be 'posed' so as to simulate much of what a human model is able to do in this regard, although plastic and metal dummies cannot respond to the artist's(s) request to make subtle bodyily shifts. Perhaps these devices would well serve art class beginners who wish to acquire the skills needed to draw, paint or sculpt the human form whether clothed or unclothed.

I am rather surprised that this thread is still ticking. I guess it must be an engrossing topic and one for which a satisfactory resolution may not be possible, not possible simply because nudity in art often does indeed pose a serious moral challenge even when intentions are noble and chaste. I do not find artful nudity to be an inducer of lust or lustful ideation and have worked with unadorned models for many years without an untoward thought.

 

[artybloke]

There are manniquins on the market today that are well articulated and can be 'posed' so as to simulate much of what a human model is able to do in this regard, although plastic and metal dummies cannot respond to the artist's(s) request to make subtle bodyily shifts. Perhaps these devices would well serve art class beginners who wish to acquire the skills needed to draw, paint or sculpt the human form whether clothed or unclothed.

No, I'm sorry, it wouldn't. Mannequins are dead matter, not living flesh and it's not the same thing. Every human body is different: which is the point of learning how to draw from life; to get that sense of uniqueness that is in everyone.

As for sexual arousal; please, get a room or something; if you can't control yourself for a couple of hours you're probably not suited for figure drawing. Models should always be treated with respect. Too many people are still hung up about sex anyway; it's not a sin to find a woman attractive. All that hatred of the body thing that has hung round Christianity since the Middle Ages really should be out the window now.

 

[Amadeus]

In my opinion, I believe nudity is NOT evil. I also believe people need to GROW UP and be more mature about it. It's not that hard to resist lust in a situation like drawing a nude or looking at nude art, or seeing a naked person in reality. Lust is a result of isolating the genitalia and other sexual areas from the rest of the body. Keep your eyes where they belong and be respectful. Why was nudity so accepted in earlier cultures, but now is a crime and something condemned by confused religious, legalistic people. Yeah, those were the goold ol' days.

Ever watch something like National Geographic? Ever see those tribal people who wear less clothing than we are used to, and have certain parts exposed as part of their normal mode of dress? Do they look ashamed? No, they don't. It's all about the mindset of the people. Stop being so legalistic, and GROW UP.

It's not nudity that causes problems, oh no. It's society. We live in a society so ridden with filth: inappropriate contentography, prostitution, promiscuity, etc. It's all about the mindset. God does not condemn nudity. When the Bible talks about shame, it talks about the shame that comes from sin. And clothing is a way to cover up your sin, or in this case, your SHAME.

Let's look at a couple examples of godly men who displayed nudity in the Bible, shall we? One person who comes to mind is Ezekiel, who was commanded to go naked by God Himself. And Peter, who was fishing, and came out of the water naked. And Jesus, who I am sure, was naked at some point during the Passion, and was definately naked after the Ressurection.

Nakedness in the context of the Old Testament times meant poverty in most cases. So of course it would be a shame to be naked, because the last material thing you are usually left with is the clothing on your back.

 

[fleveque]

Artybloke and Amadeus have it right. I totally concur that current societal mores have allowed moral, and particularly, sexual standards, to deteriorate. Our Lord made wine from water at Cana, but this action did not infer that drunkeness should be the norm. Nudity is not evil, the exploitation of nudity has allowed the inappropriate contentographer license to corrupt.

 

[LadyDay1545]

I agree, I see no problem with drawing man and woman nude. Actually if we evaluate the Song of Solomon- at that time in history the song was quite graphic and bordering inappropriate contentographic. Yet God wanted the book in his holy text. He made the male and female body beautiful to the sight, yet I think on an individual basis we must evaluate where we are in the battle of lust. Certain man/woman artist may have a major stronghold with lust and if they find that viewing these models becomes a stronghold, than I think God would have them stop and be obediant to Him. It's all about the heart, to each man as his faith allows.

 

[paradigm man]

As a former male nude model blessed with a beautifully well proportioned body, I encountered numerous females with strongholds of lust at colleges/universities. I think these females had good intentions when drawing nudes, but their sexual stronghold prevented them from objectively drawing what they considered was an attractive nude male. I also encountered female artist at art clubs who battled with lust. The reality of nude modelling is that you will encounter students/artists with strongholds of lust. As common sense dictates, the more attractive the nude model, the more students/artists they'll encounter with strongholds of lust.

It takes God to pull down sexual strongholds: "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty THROUGH God to the pulling down of strongholds (2 Cor. 10:4)." If a student/artist isn't a regenerated Christian, then the stronghold of lust will stay intact when drawing nudes.

Certain man/woman artist may have a major stronghold with lust and if they find that viewing these models becomes a stronghold, than I think God would have them stop and be obediant to Him. It's all about the heart, to each man as his faith allows.

 

[Brooke]

I consider the human body a thing of beauty as well, being an artist. (Lot of artists around here, huh? I'm surprised!) And in my opinion, it really does depend on the mind of the person witnessing the artwork. It's because of the mindset of this society that nudity is seen as inherantly sexual. Nudity in and of itself really isn't bad. I don't mind nude pictures as long as they aren't: inappropriate content, the body of a person who is married, or...hehehe, my own body. Okay, I'm bashful-- I tried drawing myself once and I felt sort of embarrassed, for some reason.
As for not being a stumbling block for other people, why not just put away the drawings after one is done with them and refuse to display them if one is so worried about causing primal feelings in the viewer's brain? That's what I would do-- nude drawings would earn a place in my sketch folder hidden from the eyes of those not mature enough to look at them objectively.
I think it's the mark of a good, mature artist that he is able to see the human body as beautiful and a thing to be respected rather than as an an object.