On being an Artist and LDS, nudity in art

[MarginOfError]

The US Supreme Court applies the following as a rule for determining what is obscene and what is not, and I've found it personally useful in determining what is and isn't pornographic.

• the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
• the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and
• the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

By some of the definitions of pornography offered here, my office is littered in porn. I seem to be collecting all sorts of drawings of women's genitalia in the course of my work.

[Dravin]

By some of the definitions of pornography offered here, my office is littered in porn. I seem to be collecting all sorts of drawings of women's genitalia in the course of my work.

If I'm recalling your line of work correctly (if vaguely), wouldn't that fall under the scientific value 'exception'?

[dazed-and-confused]

I just watched that movie "UP" with my kids and you know the scenes when the dogs stop everything when one says "squirrel"?

Well, that is what it feels like sometimes with guys and nudity. I guess I hope with emotional/spiritual maturity one would be able to tolerate non sexual nudity, but maybe my assumption just doesn't happen in real life.

i know some people that are very good at seperating nudity from sexuality.

they DO exist.

[Bini]

I've taken such courses and see nothing wrong with it. One of our models was LDS too.

[MarginOfError]

If I'm recalling your line of work correctly (if vaguely), wouldn't that fall under the scientific value 'exception'?

Yeah it would. My point was more that some of the definitions proposed here don't work very well in my reality.

[Guest]

Well, all biology books show naked people.

So, how can you be a doctor and not study the nude human form? You can't. You have to slice and dice reproductive organs even. You should hear my brother's cadaver stories... especially the ones where they had to handle and remove a male member.

So, more than likely, your average doctor do not see naked and think sex.

I don't either. But that's just because I was super interested in the Vitruvian Man when I was like 12 or so.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Dravin
Don't be crude.

[Vanhin]

I don't think we really have a common definition so far, only definitions as they apply to people individually. In other words, I don't really think anyone is saying nude art must necessarily cause sexual arousal in everyone. It is safe to conclude, however, that some nude art can cause sexual arousal in some people, if they dwell on it. I'm thinking more about beautiful women depicted nude on canvas. However, I was looking at some of that Frida stuff and I was more likely to hurl than get aroused by it.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

Well, all biology books show naked people.

So, how can you be a doctor and not study the nude human form? You can't. You have to slice and dice reproductive organs even. You should hear my brother's cadaver stories... especially the ones where they had to handle and remove a male member.

So, more than likely, your average doctor do not see naked and think sex.

I don't either. But that's just because I was super interested in the Vitruvian Man when I was like 12 or so.

Yeah, for me that is entirely different than viewing a piece of art depicting a beautiful woman nude, or even worse, viewing an actual nude woman (who is not my wife) while trying to paint or draw her likeness. I'll leave that for other people to do; the men who are more emotionally/spiritually "mature", or who are capable of pretending like they are not attracted to beautiful naked women.

Regards,

Vanhin

[annamaureen]

My husband was a Fine Art major. He jokes that there's no way you could get turned on by the nude models, because they were always some funky unshaved hippie chicks!

But on a more serious note, I think perhaps the intent of the nude art is important. Is it designed to arouse, or simply to tastefully display the human form? I spent some time in Europe and think back on all several-hundred year old paintings with both men and women nude, and can't find anything pornographic about it.

[Vanhin]

My husband was a Fine Art major. He jokes that there's no way you could get turned on by the nude models, because they were always some funky unshaved hippie chicks!

I'm sure there are unshaven hippie artists, who get turned on by that sort of thing.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest]

My husband was a Fine Art major. He jokes that there's no way you could get turned on by the nude models, because they were always some funky unshaved hippie chicks!

But on a more serious note, I think perhaps the intent of the nude art is important. Is it designed to arouse, or simply to tastefully display the human form? I spent some time in Europe and think back on all several-hundred year old paintings with both men and women nude, and can't find anything pornographic about it.

Actually, the intent of drawing the nude form is to learn the aesthetics of balance and symmetry in a human form. Artists usually start with stills - like clay pots - and work with different textures - clay, ceramic, wood, etc. Then eventually they move on to the human form. There is an ingrained symmetry in the world - which is part of the reason it is easy for me to believe in God, but that's another topic. The human body is an example of this symmetry. DaVinci exhumed 19 corpses to try to establish some "guidelines" for beauty. Like the length of the foot from heel to toe would be the same length of the forearm from elbow to wrist. The circumference of the waist is twice the circumference of the neck. The distance between the eyes is the same length as one eye, etc. etc.

Then there's the function of each limb, the range of motion, the angles of the joints... then there's the texture of the skin...

Man, it is endless.

Once you got all this down pat, then you can manipulate the form to express something - from regular human expressions to caricatures - and then give the thing an illusion of "movement" and even "life" that is otherwise absent in a 2D world.

So yeah, it is quite an important study in Fine Arts.

Edited December 17, 2009 by anatess

[annamaureen]

No, I already knew that, anatess - I was talking about the finished product, be it a painting, drawing, or sculpture.

[Guest]

No, I already knew that, anatess - I was talking about the finished product, be it a painting, drawing, or sculpture.

Same thing. To show mastery of the human form. It's not an easy thing to do. Even for one with talent.

[trixie]

Wow great discussion you guys! Thanks for the insight

[seekerw]

I once looked at an art book with photos of nude women in various poses (none of which were suggesetive). I could look for a time without feeling tempted, but then temptation started hitting and I had to put the book down. There are times when I could look at the entire book and not think a thing of it, and others when I wouldn't trust myself to open up the book at all. I haven't found any hard and fast rules on this subject.

[Moksha]

From the BYU figure drawing class:

"Art does not mean all naked and stuff like those Rodin sculptures"

[Misshalfway]

I guess I have a problem with the sweeping definitions that some use to govern themselves. Not that I don't think others have the right or that sometimes such is needed depending on the heart of the individual. What I am trying to say is that broad definitions don't work. We don't burn books. We don't outlaw all dancing. Of course some books are explicit and dance that causes arrousal but if we start saying that everything that has nudity is morally "wrong" or the practices by which an artist learns his/her craft, then aren't we doing the same thing? When I imagine a spiritually and morally mature individual, I picture someone who has the ability of discernment and someone who isn't triggered by everything that walks by. Does that make sense? The person is in control of the sexual passions rather than the environment. Not that I think this justifies extended or inappropriate exposure......

Edited December 22, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Dravin]

We don't burn books. We don't outlaw all dancing. Of course some books are explicit and dance that causes arrousal but if we start saying that everything that has nudity is morally "wrong" or the practices by which an artist learns his/her craft, then aren't we doing the same thing?

No. That's like saying if I think what you are wearing is immodest that it is the same as making you wear a burka. Can you really not see the divide between thinking something is wrong/inappropriate and taking action to prevent it from being possible? I don't think nudity = morally wrong, though it certainly can be. But even if I did, your analogy is horrid.

Not that I think this justifies extended or inappropriate exposure......

You get to have a concept of what is justified or inappropriate, but if anyone else does they're burning books?

Edited December 22, 2009 by Dravin

[Misshalfway]

Dravin, why are you taking my comments personally? My statements are in no way pointed at you.

I am just speaking against blanket statements. Let's just use the Freida example again. If I disregard Frieda because there is nudity in her work, I miss the deeper implications of what she was trying to say. Truthfully, I was disturbed when I saw her work at first, but in looking deeper and learning, she has become someone I can appreciate even with the distrubing stuff and the nudity as well. If my child wants to be an artist and I forbid anything that looks like nudity, don't I teach a ridgidty that isn't necessary?

BYU has found the balance and I respect them for it because they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Dravin]

Dravin, why are you taking my comments personally? My statements are in no way pointed at you.

I'm not particularly taking them personally. But I'm not just going to sit here why you pretty much accuse those who don't agree with you with being book burning, dance banning Puritans or some such nonsense. You analogy was horrid, I pointed it out.

Where I come from book burning has some pretty nasty connotations attached to it, and the leap of disapproval to destruction or banning in your logic doesn't help that any. Do you also make the leap that those who disapprove of taking the name of the Lord in vain are also in favour of passing legislating making it illegal to do so? Or burning all media that does so? Do you disapprove of taking the name of the Lord in vain? Are you in favour of making it illegal and/or destroying all media that does so? There is a difference between disapproval of something and physically (or legally) preventing others from doing that something.

Let's just use the Freida example again. If I disregard Frieda because there is nudity in her work, I miss the deeper implications of what she was trying to say. Truthfully, I was disturbed when I saw her work at first, but in looking deeper and learning, she has become someone I can appreciate even with the distrubing stuff and the nudity as well.

And if one doesn't do this they are book burners? You want to say they are missing out on something, that's fine. But that isn't what you did.

If my child wants to be an artist and I forbid anything that looks like nudity, don't I teach a rigidity that isn't necessary?

Well that all depends on what you think is necessary doesn't it? Somewhere down the line you've got somebody making the same argument about premarital sex or straight up pornography, teaching your child they shouldn't get involved is an unnecessary rigidity from their point of view. On the other hand you've got people teaching a women wearing pants is a lack of necessary rigidity. Some of them would compare you to a book burning, dance banning puritan (or in the latter, a valueless, God mocking sinner) I suppose. I'd object to that too if they were here.

You've drawn your own lines, which is fine (to a degree for everyone involved). Those lines are placed different than others, this is also fine. You want to accuse those who place the line differently from you on the more conservative side as book burning, dance banning puritans? Yeah, people are going to take exception to that, some of them whether it applies to them in any particular manner or not.

Edit: Maybe I've just horribly misjudged your tone. That's always a possibility.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Dravin

[Misshalfway]

Ok Drav. Just breath in an out.

All I am saying is that using a definition that labels all nudity in art as pornography is as wrong as book burning. I am thinking of that scene in Footloose where they think the answer is burning all the books. Yes, that will get satan out. But the truth is that Satan lives in our hearts if we let him. Satan isn't in all nudity and that's why I can't label all nudity as pornography. I feel the same insult you are explaining when people say every naked woman was painted with the intent to tantalize the viewer. That this is all the female form was created for. If a person has an inappropriate sexual response to something, well then maybe the problem lies with the individual. Truth is Drav..... I want this world and this church even to be a place where such extremes aren't needed because other more refined/balanced reactions exist.

And now I am gonna let this go. You aren't hearing what I am saying anyway.

[bluedreams]

I am not LDS but I do have a question for LDS artists out there. First I apologize if this is in the wrong place, wasn't sure where the right place is. Anyhow my question is this. How do you all feel about nudity in art? Is there a church stance on this? I attend an art school a figure drawing is required of us. I've met a couple LDS kids at the art school I go to. One of them sees no problem with it, another one seems to think it's pornographic. Further more we have a gallery with teacher work and student work on display some of which is nude, I happen to find it artistically done and tasteful. How do the church schools go about teaching figure drawing? Just curious, any insight would be great, thanks

Thought I'd answer the OP first before taking a closer look at the rest of the posts, so sorry if this has been repeated. To start I am an artist (or at least I do art) though not one professionally nor academically. But its something I love dearly, have very strong opinions about, and know a little bit about in the BYU schools (a little, not a lot since I'm not a major or minor in art).

How do you all feel about nudity in art? Is there a church stance on this?

Nudity in art is a-okay in my book.....and is for most artists that I know. For me personally, there is nudity that pushes on the edge of pornographic/tactless and then the rest. The vast majority of nude paintings, IMHO, are in the rest category....even many a painting that have an actual sexual theme to it. Most artists will need to learn the human form and how to paint it at some point in their lives. I, personally, have never done a full nude, but am not closed to doing so and probably will one day...what stops me is that I'm usually in an apartment with roommates who may or may not enjoy the idea of a nude painting coming to life in their living room. Though LDS artists are generally a little more liberal leaning when it comes to things like nudity, the general LDS population is not. Thus paintings of a less controversial nature are usually made.

The reason I don't mind nudity is simply because nakedness does not equal sex to me. It can symbolize sexuality (among many other things) but not necessarily having sex. The naked form, in and of itself is not porno. How it is depicted, IMO, is key. I've seen paintings that made me uncomfortable where the models were fully (or nearly) clothed and I've seen paintings that I felt entirely comfortable looking at that were entirely in the buff. There is no set place that is the bench mark of okay and not. It is up to the observer.

As for the church itself I don't think there is any set standard. Of course if you were going to go with mainstream lds art, you'd almost assume it was inappropriate to have the figure covered in anything but loose draping clothes that leave little skin below the head with very few exceptions;). My motto, instead, is simply to depict with good taste and discretion.

How do the church schools go about teaching figure drawing?

Nowadays figure drawing classes entail models that are either in binkinis for the females and speedos for the males. And (much to the grumbling of a number of my art friends) I heard they were limiting the figure drawing classes to a higher level course to increase the average age of the student. Seemed asinine to me at the time, but after thinking about an experience in a totally unrelated class where I was describing the first part of reproduction and students started giggling at the mention of sperm.....I could see why it might be done. As a general rule church schools error on the side of caution and stick with more conservative depictions of art. In part because a number of students in the classes would not want it. In part because the art is then later depicted in the public halls/gallaries where other students that are not always artists will see it and are even more likely to not want it. In part because the larger public and student body who may catch wind of controversy would almost certainly raise their pens and voices in protest. So BYU (not sure about the other schools) has figure drawing classes with people in bikinis/speedos and if the students want to do full nudes to beef up their portfolio they are welcome to take off-campus (and non-school related) classes that are nearby.

With luv,

BD

[Dravin]

All I am saying is that using a definition that labels all nudity in art as pornography is as wrong as book burning.

Really? Truly? Yeah, I'm just going to have to disagree with that one. Let's destroy everything we disagree with versus I disagree with all that stuff, but it's your life.

I know what philosophy I'd rather live under.

That this is all the female form was created for.

And who has been saying this exactly? Nobody in this thread that I've noticed.

[Dravin]

And Miss I understand what you are saying.

* Stating all nudity is pornography is wrong.

* You wish that some day people won't have to avoid nudity unless it is sexual explicit (though at that point I imagine explicit or intentioned 'art' won't exist) because they have complete mastery of their thoughts and desires and Satan has so little pull on them that looking at a photograph or portrait of a nude adult is no different than looking at a bottle of Coppertone (I suppose some day that will be achievable but I doubt until we're no longer mortal).

* You understand that such is not the case yet (with at least some) and so people understandably avoid nudity that isn't sexual explicit or intentioned. Though you think going so far as the first bullet is taking things a touch to far in that goal.

Really, the only place you went that leaves me going, "What the... ?" is book burning = saying all nudity is pornography. I would agree with both being wrong in the 3+5 = 29 is wrong sense, but not in the confiscating private property to eliminate opposing viewpoints and force people to conform (and in the process violating or eliminating liberties) is the same level of wrong sense.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Dravin

[bluedreams]

because they have complete mastery of their thoughts and desires and Satan has so little pull on them that looking at a photograph or portrait of a nude adult is no different than looking at a bottle of Coppertone (I suppose some day that will be achievable but I doubt until we're no longer mortal).

I hope you don't mind me jumping in. But I don't think nudity should elicit no response....or similar to looking at a bottle of Coppetone. There shouldn't be a day that that should happen. Human form is beautiful and that beauty should be appreciated. Nudity in art, especially among the best art often times has a very poignant message on humanity, culture, and sexuality (at times). I don't think that it shouldn't elicit responce but that its primary responce be that message and not one's own libido.

Really, the only place you went that leaves me going, "What the... ?" is book burning = saying all nudity is pornography. I would agree with both being wrong in the 3+5 = 29 is wrong sense, but not in the confiscating private property to

eliminate opposing viewpoints and force people to conform (and in the process violating or eliminating liberties) is the same level of wrong sense.

Actually, in the art world, that hasn't been too far off. When society has taken a more extreme twist where nudity = porn (or at least inappropriate to the more delicate class' senses) art was censored or entirely destroyed. It was a method of instilling conformity and eliminating oppsing viewpoints in the cultural sense.

With luv,

BD