Modesty versus Naughtesty

[dnc76v22]

I was looking for a reference about something I heard about those nude statues once being clothed with real cloth when I found this:

Why Ancient Greeks are Always Nude

It also had this interesting paragrah:

"Greek males, it is generally agreed, did not walk around town naked, they did not ride their horses naked, and they certainly did not go into battle naked," Hurwit said. "In most public contexts, clothing was not optional, and in combat nakedness was suicidal."

[FunkyTown]

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 disagree, Ztodd. Historically, nude art has done many things.

For instance, The Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci is the iconic nude. It helped define modern knowledge of the body. Without da Vinci, who knows what modern medicine would be?

I would also like to point out that The Vitruvian Man is not in any way, shape or form pornographic. It is educational, insightful and even philosophical.

This is The Vitruvian Man: Vitruvian Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can point out to several other works as important, but that particular nude is so famous and iconic and responsible for so much for which we should be grateful that I had to bring up the fact that at least one work done as a nude was vital for modern living.

[ztodd]

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.

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

Oh, on the contrary, chocolate is very necessary to our society!

I agree that the cute baby pics you mention and the Venus de Milo statue are not pornographic. But to have people pose nude now a days is a bit too close to the edge (if not over it), playing with fire, so I think we all ought to just stay away from that.

[ztodd]

I disagree, Ztodd. Historically, nude art has done many things.

For instance, The Vitruvian Man by Leonardo da Vinci is the iconic nude. It helped define modern knowledge of the body. Without da Vinci, who knows what modern medicine would be?

I would also like to point out that The Vitruvian Man is not in any way, shape or form pornographic. It is educational, insightful and even philosophical.

This is The Vitruvian Man: Vitruvian Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can point out to several other works as important, but that particular nude is so famous and iconic and responsible for so much for which we should be grateful that I had to bring up the fact that at least one work done as a nude was vital for modern living.

The Vitruvian Man is not the kind of nude art I was think about that is like unto pornography. I'm more concerned with people posing nude to experience cheap a cheap thrill and calling it art to make their conscience feel better.

[HEthePrimate]

Oh, on the contrary, chocolate is very necessary to our society!

Well, I'll concede that point!

I agree that the cute baby pics you mention and the Venus de Milo statue are not pornographic. But to have people pose nude now a days is a bit too close to the edge (if not over it), playing with fire, so I think we all ought to just stay away from that.

So, if it's old, it's ok, but if it's new it's not ok...

HEP

[FunkyTown]

In his defense, HEP, much of modern nude art is pornographic. If you look at the nudes done by Attila Lukacz, you will see a person who is lauded for edgy art when in fact it's actually just dressed up pornography with a renaissance-feel edge.

However, there are great artists still working in the medium. While I disagree with the OP that there is no such thing as legitimate nude art, I also would suggest that pornography has been dressing itself up as art for the past few millenia and trying to confuse the issue.

Edited June 3, 2009 by FunkyTown
I misused baroque, so before someone corrects me, I will put the correct 'Renaissance-feel' phrase in. ;)

[Prodigal_Son]

Are you saying that God is a porn publisher and distributor?

Satan wasn't imposing temptation upon them, either. Look at what happened the moment he did. They covered themselves.

[Misshalfway]

Nudity isn't bad.

Explicit sexuality isn't good.

Art reflects both. Heck! Art reflects the whole spectrum! It's like music.....you gotta pick right.

Sometimes I think people just need to relax. Shutting your eyes to the world isn't any healthier than bathing in it!

[Islander]

Nudity isn't bad.

Explicit sexuality isn't good.

Art reflects both. Heck! Art reflects the whole spectrum! It's like music.....you gotta pick right.

Sometimes I think people just need to relax. Shutting your eyes to the world isn't any healthier than bathing in it!

I sort of understand the attempt to rationalize this one. But one drop of sewer water in a swimming pool and the right bacteria and you have a pandemic in your hands. Better safe than sorry. I have not missed anything of real value by not going to a contempo art gallery to see paintings of naked women.

My life is just fine. Ask my wife.

[Misshalfway]

I don't see any rationalization in my statement whatsoever. And I don't see the art world as one giant pool that even can be contaminated. I think each piece of art....and artist....must be evaluated individually. What one is saying with nudity can be very different from another. And not all nudity is sexual. I think that sometimes it absolutely is and is absolutely obscene. But I do find value in drawing or imitating the human form in certain contexts. I think there is much to be gained by studying it. I find it even edifying at times. And I do feel the spirit teach me what is appropriate as I explore all that art has to offer.

I understand the better safe than sorry mentality, I guess. But there are certain contexts where the sexual lens just doesn't apply. And I don't think the church teaches us to "never" look at nudity in art. My BYU art classes are evidence of that. And perhaps some may have different comfort levels than others. I am not disturbed by that. If someone views nudity, in any context, and has a sexually inappropriate response, the problem lies in the heart of the individual and not necessarily in the nudity itself. This better be true, or I would never go to the Dr.

[Islander]

I don't see any rationalization in my statement whatsoever. And I don't see the art world as one giant pool that even can be contaminated. I think each piece of art....and artist....must be evaluated individually. What one is saying with nudity can be very different from another. And not all nudity is sexual. I think that sometimes it absolutely is and is absolutely obscene. But I do find value in drawing or imitating the human form in certain contexts. I think there is much to be gained by studying it. I find it even edifying at times. And I do feel the spirit teach me what is appropriate as I explore all that art has to offer.

I understand the better safe than sorry mentality, I guess. But there are certain contexts where the sexual lens just doesn't apply. And I don't think the church teaches us to "never" look at nudity in art. My BYU art classes are evidence of that. And perhaps some may have different comfort levels than others. I am not disturbed by that. If someone views nudity, in any context, and has a sexually inappropriate response, the problem lies in the heart of the individual and not necessarily in the nudity itself. This better be true, or I would never go to the Dr.

The analogy of the pool (it got lost I suppose) related to the fact that not much is necessary to reek havoc. Nude modeling can lead to other more explicit forms of "art." What goes on in UCLA, for example, is just bizarre. I am not deriding the art form per say. I am overall pointing to the fact that in general there are other forms that do not deal with the subject but are of equal or greater value.

[Misshalfway]

The analogy of the pool (it got lost I suppose) related to the fact that not much is necessary to reek havoc. Nude modeling can lead to other more explicit forms of "art." What goes on in UCLA, for example, is just bizarre. I am not deriding the art form per say. I am overall pointing to the fact that in general there are other forms that do not deal with the subject but are of equal or greater value.

You don't have to have a nude model to study the human form and I am not advocating the practice. And I absolutely agree that a lot of crap is justified as "art" when perhaps it is nothing but filth. I get it!

My point is that closing ones eyes to everything isn't the answer, nor is it a way of living in the world but not of the world. And just because I find some nudity in art appropriate, I don't see that as justifying sin or allowing a different set of moral rules for the artsy. I think there is room for a healthy dose of balance here. I think the statue of David is awesome. Sue me!

One can stay balanced AND morally clean at the same time!

[HEthePrimate]

In his defense, HEP, much of modern nude art is pornographic. If you look at the nudes done by Attila Lukacz, you will see a person who is lauded for edgy art when in fact it's actually just dressed up pornography with a renaissance-feel edge.

However, there are great artists still working in the medium. While I disagree with the OP that there is no such thing as legitimate nude art, I also would suggest that pornography has been dressing itself up as art for the past few millenia and trying to confuse the issue.

Again, agreed. What I have a problem with is the extreme position that nudity in art is always bad. If this were a forum where people were arguing that pornography is good, or that nudity is always good, I'd be arguing that porn is bad and nudity is not necessarily good. But this is an LDS forum and I don't see anybody saying those things (thankfully!), so...

HEP

[Moksha]

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.

Certain modifications are required for the BYU life drawing classes.

At the University of Utah, the models may or may not be wearing a smile.

:)

[Moksha]

This Sandworm from the Utah West Deseret area

is totally nude, yet is it pornography? I will let

the mind of the beholder decide.

[fish4kitty]

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...

The answer to this is intent. One arouses the mind and stimulates creativity. The other one is just meant to arouse.

Putting lipstick on a pig? I chuckled out loud picturing it.

[john doe]

This Sandworm from the Utah West Deseret area

is totally nude, yet is it pornography? I will let

the mind of the beholder decide.

Pervert.

[hordak]

This Sandworm from the Utah West Deseret area

is totally nude, yet is it pornography? I will let

the mind of the beholder decide.

I would make a comment about Freud (since Finanin is gone) but since this isn't the open forum I will refrain.

[myway]

I don't know. I can get the jest of art without the nudity. It is kind of like when you meet a very nice looking woman and she has a wonderful disposistion, a great smile, a generous soul, I appreciate her beauty, but I don't have to see her naked to appreciate her.

[sugarcrane2]

I don't know. I can get the jest of art without the nudity. It is kind of like when you meet a very nice looking woman and she has a wonderful disposistion, a great smile, a generous soul, I appreciate her beauty, but I don't have to see her naked to appreciate her.

A family friend does nude maturity/ new baby shots. Yes the women is beautiful fully dressed but it is another thing completely when you see a nude mother nursing or holding her rip belly. It's natural and pure you can see everything but that is not porn (that why you can nurse in public) it’s the body performing the way God wanted it to. It is appreciating His handy work. The body is a work of art no we don't cast our pearls before swine and show it to the world but neither do we hide shamefully.

I think dressing immodesty is a whole other discussion.

[Mahdi]

In the name of God

"modesty" is the gift of God toward those who want to feel "humanity" and using this gift to grow "humanity" among the people has more important.

because some nude statues are in the shape of humans,watching them is like that you are watching a picture of a nude person but in the form of stone.So the statues should be shaped in a modesty form.

thanks

Mahdi

[Mahdi]

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

According to Holy Quran,God was who learned human to cover himself and clothe was a gift from God toward humans.

[Prodigal_Son]

According to Holy Quran,God was who learned human to cover himself and clothe was a gift from God toward humans.

Well, He DID create the fig plant from which the first FALL-Lineup was fabricated.

[Guest]

I don't know what it is - American culture, LDS culture, whatever... but there is HUGE GIGANTIC difference between nudity and pornography!

Okay, there's this tribe in the Philippines called the Tasadays. They wear G-strings. That's it. Males AND females. We see them all the time! So, you're saying they are all pornographic sluts - each and every one of them! Oh, and ME too, for hanging out with the bunch.

Geez.

I always wondered what the church will do if they want to establish a branch in the Tasaday village. I guess they'll all have to start wearing "real" clothes now so they can be "decent". I betcha that's the EXACT MOMENT that these people will realize, hey, she's naked... SLUT!

[Moksha]

Okay, there's this tribe in the Philippines called the Tasadays. They wear G-strings. That's it. Males AND females. We see them all the time! So, you're saying they are all pornographic sluts - each and every one of them! Oh, and ME too, for hanging out with the bunch.

Perhaps the missionaries need to take a clue from you Anatess, and let it all hang out. When in Tasaday Villiage, do as the Tasadays do. Don't try this though in Antarctica.