Moksha Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 Another thread about hot Mormon mamas got me thinking about the parameters of our thinking regarding (gasp!) nudity. Can nudity ever be part of Art and be appreciated or must it be relegated to the overall category of being naughty and unacceptable? Could classical Greek statues be acceptable with appropriate length clothing attached to them? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 There is another thread already on this subject. I was going to post the link and realized it's in Open Discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl62 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 There is another thread already on this subject. I was going to post the link and realized it's in Open Discussion.Open discussion? So where's that on the board? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Open discussion? So where's that on the board? Open discussion is on another part of the board. Personally, if you haven't been there, you're not missing anything. It is reserved for more (ahem) mature topics, but site rules still apply. If you feel you must fill your curiosity and look, you can gain access by PMing a head moderator with a statement that you are over 18 and wish to have access to that part of the site, and they will push the appropriate magic buttons to allow you in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Ogre Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Open discussion is on another part of the board. Personally, if you haven't been there, you're not missing anything. It is reserved for more (ahem) mature topics, but site rules still apply. If you feel you must fill your curiosity and look, you can gain access by PMing a head moderator with a statement that you are over 18 and wish to have access to that part of the site, and they will push the appropriate magic buttons to allow you in.Yeah, I'm over 18 and am definitely not old enough for mature topics. I also do not want to hear about women my age being nude. I think everyone over 40 should be required to wear clothing while showering. Nudity over forty is unethical and immoral.About the statue? I don't mind. It's a rock. I have some naked rocks lining my driveway. Should I dress those? Edited June 2, 2009 by the Ogre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisyn Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think it depends on the rock. Some rocks might be able to get away with a few tasteful leaves, while others would have to have full-length skirting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted June 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think it depends on the rock. Some rocks might be able to get away with a few tasteful leaves, while others would have to have full-length skirting. So, no bikinis for the Venus de Milo (and especially for the Venus of Willendorf). But what about miniskirts?How about a short sleeve white shirt and black tie for Michelangelo's David.Ogre, that clothes while showering requirement for those over forty sounds like a promising basis for a Sacrament talk.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 So, no bikinis for the Venus de Milo (and especially for the Venus of Willendorf). But what about miniskirts?How about a short sleeve white shirt and black tie for Michelangelo's David.Ogre, that clothes while showering requirement for those over forty sounds like a promising basis for a Sacrament talk.:)Just make sure you tie the tie extra long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Nudity was a curiosity and celebrated in the ancient world. In early 20th century it satisfied sexual anxiety. Today a naked statute does not signify "art" necessarily and other than teenagers, most people will ignore it. Art (nudity) in general is a more or less veiled attempt to satisfied sexual restlessness in the part of the artist and the need for attention of the model. Money is just the incentive to catalyze the transaction. Just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) I was raised in the home of an artist. This may sound odd to some but being able to see nudity is a basic element to realistic art that depicts people that goes far beyond the “forbidden” parts. The realism in the very popular western art also requires a good artist to study the anatomy of animals as well. Also in "classic" art often the artist would reveal enough in of the anatomy of females to make sure that all understood that the subject was for sure female.The Traveler Edited June 2, 2009 by Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADoyle90815 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 My opinion about nude statues is that they were designed to show the beauty of the human body. It's about as old as art itself, and was especially popular during ancient Greece and Rome. In a way, nudity is still seen as art, as long as it's not done to arouse people. Outside of Utah, art students draw nude models in Life Drawing classes, and for many students, it's the only time in their artistic careers that they depict anyone nude. I understand that in Utah and probably other extremely conservative areas, models for those classes wear bathing suits or leotards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalShadow Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 In a way, nudity is still seen as art, as long as it's not done to arouse people. Outside of Utah, art students draw nude models in Life Drawing classes, and for many students, it's the only time in their artistic careers that they depict anyone nude. I understand that in Utah and probably other extremely conservative areas, models for those classes wear bathing suits or leotards.Figure drawing classes at BYU aren't allowed to have nude models, but I believe at the University of Utah they do draw nude models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Yeah, sure...nudity for exclusive "artistic reasons." We can and often do become desensitized from whatever stimuli under certain conditions and with familiarity and repetition. The simple fact is that nudity is designed to be attractive, appealing, enticing and arousing. We can argue what is the level of the beforehand mentioned but they remains the substrata of the driver to engage in such art pursue. It is just like my neighbor. She like short skirts. She claims it benefits/accentuate her figure, she always dressed that way, it keeps her body fresh, it is a modern style, it makes her look younger....blah, blah....The bottom line is she relishes the attention she gets by wearing short skirts. She likes turning heads, it feeds her ego. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Yeah, sure...nudity for exclusive "artistic reasons." We can and often do become desensitized from whatever stimuli under certain conditions and with familiarity and repetition. The simple fact is that nudity is designed to be attractive, appealing, enticing and arousing. We can argue what is the level of the beforehand mentioned but they remains the substrata of the driver to engage in such art pursue.It is just like my neighbor. She like short skirts. She claims it benefits/accentuate her figure, she always dressed that way, it keeps her body fresh, it is a modern style, it makes her look younger....blah, blah....The bottom line is she relishes the attention she gets by wearing short skirts. She likes turning heads, it feeds her ego. You are correct that our outward appearances do indeed communicate something about who we are. However, in many places outside the USA, violence in art and entertainment is seen as much more degrading to human character than nudity. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 You are correct that our outward appearances do indeed communicate something about who we are. However, in many places outside the USA, violence in art and entertainment is seen as much more degrading to human character than nudity. The TravelerI would agree. I have been in the US going on 20 years now and still don't get the people's fascination with violence. Elsewhere I describe in some details what is like to actually shoot somebody. Not pretty or glmorous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim108 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 You know it all depends on each person. Hugh Hefner would have a different view then Larry Flint and Larry would have a different then an LDS bishop. My view...I like Renoir, but during his life others called him a dirty old man. I think we see too much on TV and in movies. The TV is a bigger problem. Commercials that dont have a rating come on during family hours and show all kinds of things our kids should not see. I can't stand the viagra type commercials and we see them all the time. I believe we shoud have a choice of what our families can see. I do not want to see the art museums take down the Renoir's so I gues you can't stop Hefner from printing either. I guess we need to be on guard for ourselves and our kids. Its our duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 I would think it would more depend on what the artist is wanting to depict. Even when I was a teenage I never thought of most nude art to be sexual, just the human form. Would images of nude people in my biology/anatomy books for class then be considered 'dirty'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 I remember at the end of a church service, going up to the front for some prayer. The time was very meaningful, and I really felt I'd connected with God and gained some spiritual strength that would help me live more godly and holy. As I got up to return to my seat, I turned around, and in the front row sat a georgeous 20-something lady, with a very low-cut dress...if I'm not mistaken I literally covered my eyes and quickly walked past. So, is near-nudity art or spiritual warfare??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEthePrimate Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Another thread about hot Mormon mamas got me thinking about the parameters of our thinking regarding (gasp!) nudity.Can nudity ever be part of Art and be appreciated or must it be relegated to the overall category of being naughty and unacceptable?Could classical Greek statues be acceptable with appropriate length clothing attached to them?:)That was funny, Moksha! No, putting "appropriate length clothing" on Classical Greek statues would most certainly not be acceptable--it would be defacing them, IMHO. The human body is beautiful (well, maybe not mine!) and therefore an attractive subject for artists. Even less attractive people are interesting, and artists like to depict them, too (look at Da Vinci's studies, for example).Sometimes I wonder if the way so many people treat nudity (with shock, shame, etc.) doesn't actually enhance it's tendency to titillate. Sort of the "forbidden fruit syndrome," you know?HEP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazed-and-confused Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 i see that many of the responses to this are so fully influenced by the puritanical hypocrasies of the american past.......the "sinful" and "disgusting" belief that the nude form is sinful. It's the attitudes of the viewers that is sinful...not the body. Violence is much more discusting, and yet war is glorified and violence on TV. as a viet nam vet (navy corpsman with marine recon unit), i can tell you, it's NOT a movie. Thats where we become desensitised, in my opinion. in the words of one larry flint (yes, THAT larry flint.....but i feel its still valid), " you have a complaint about the appearance of the nude form, take it to the manufacturer". i believe in modesty, but modest to me may not be to someone else. so, it still comes back to the same thing for me.....sin is in how nudity is perceived, not in the act itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal_Son Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 I'm a black and white kind of guy, so I apologize to those of you whom I'll offend by saying this: Nude art... porn... what's the difference? Like puttin' lipstick on a pig... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted June 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 It's the attitudes of the viewers that is sinful...not the body. Violence is much more disgusting, and yet war is glorified and violence on TV. I have heard many thoughtful people say that they would rather have their children exposed to nude art than violence, which they regarded as the quintessential pornography. Granted, that many of these people have been women who do not understand the primal need of natural men to pillage neighboring villages. Somehow they have come to view God's handiwork as beautiful if tastefully presented. Others like Prodigal Son, see no difference between nude art and pornography. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEthePrimate Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 I'm a black and white kind of guy, so I apologize to those of you whom I'll offend by saying this:Nude art... porn... what's the difference?Like puttin' lipstick on a pig...Are you saying that God is a porn publisher and distributor? Adam and Eve were naked, as was I when I was born, at least until the nurses hurriedly and shamefully covered up my disgusting, sinful, little infant body... HEP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ztodd Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Hi HEP, I'd recommend you go back to the definition on pornography. Personally, I feel that nude art is a spiritual danger akin to pornography and is not a necessary contribution to our society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HEthePrimate Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Hi HEP, I'd recommend you go back to the definition on pornography.Personally, I feel that nude art is a spiritual danger akin to pornography and is not a necessary contribution to our society.I'd recommend that you go back and read the post by Prodigal_Son I was responding to. He said "Nude art... porn... what's the difference?" Apparently you agree with him that there is no difference, but I think there is.pornography (n.) Media or photographs showing erotic or sexual behavior in a way designed to cause sexual arousal.Nude art is not necessarily designed to cause sexual arousal. Likewise, nudity is not a necessary ingredient of eroticism. Are those cute pictures of little babies by Anne Geddes to be considered pornographic because they're nekkid? Is the Venus de Milo statue pornographic? (I saw the Venus de Milo when I was a missionary! )Chocolate is not a "necessary contribution to our society," either, but I sure as heck hope they don't quit making it! HEP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.