Comments on: Artistic Nude or Pornography?

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:52:31 +0000

I stumbled across this image while conducting “research” (I hesitate to label cruising the internet for nudes as such) for my class. I am having my students find nude images that would be censored on television but that, in their opinion at least, should not be considered “pornographic” or “obscene.” In the context of a larger discussion of civil liberties, we are attempting to discern what exactly constitutes “pornography,” what constitutes “art,” and what falls into other various categories (a simple photgraph with little or no attached meaning, erotica, etc.). And make no bones about it, someone who labels your artistic nude “pornographic”, though he may be unaware of it himself, is saying that the work is “obscene” and has “little or no artistic or scientific value” and no more than “ordinary significance.”

I am certainly going to share this link with the class… hopefully a few students can respond w. feedback. Just to be clear, these are of-age college students. No need for boisterous parents here!

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:17:00 +0000

Its very difficult to decide on whether this kind of image is wrong, on the pure fact that each and everyone’s reaction will be extremely varied. If you were to completely disregard the individual, and focus on the artists message, it was probably never really meant to be offensive.
Talking from my perspective, I think nudity is bad if it starts to turn its subject purely into an object. I don’t agree in a prude attitude towards nakedness. Sometimes it feels like denial towards our natural state, we weren’t born with clothes.
At the same time, pornography is a serious issue, sometimes “artistic nude” is just a label given.

Right and wrong is just subjective, its something built by society/race/religion.

By: Tosee

Tosee — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 11:36:12 +0000

I agree with Joshua and Dave. Whatever justifications we provide for our filthy needs are just satisfaction for our soul, since whatever Jesus said and showed with the example of his life do not allow this. Its fine to comment on a topic, but with references and examples as Joshua. While being speaking with just own perception is a diversion. If we refer only an authentic manual of life in takings decisions, our job get easier.

By: How to draw

How to draw — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:46:47 +0000

We use nude models in our art classes for adults all the time. The human form is art, very easy concept to undrstand. Even in the 15th and 16th century when europe ws under the heavy hand of the Catholic church this was allowed and viewed as art.

Most important artists and aspiring art students even bought cadavers to dissect to further explore anatomy.

By: Brittany

Brittany — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:32:28 +0000

Is being a regular model that dosn’t do any nude or sexual things, considered a sin to god?

By: pat - Landscape Artist

pat - Landscape Artist — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 04:29:16 +0000

God made the human body and it was designed to be functional as well as beautiful. However, since Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden, clothes have been worn since that time and for a good reason.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:40:08 +0000

I’m christian, just wanted to say.
I think that Joshua has some good points, but his missing the head point in the entire religion of christianity, even if you look at it with lust, you will not burn in hell for one sin, or two, or ten thousand, grace is the main messange.
Also, even though I don’t know how many of you who are christian, many of you seem to have reached to the point aldready, if you see it with lust, then it’s a sin. If you don’t, I don’t see how it can be so.
And to Dave: no Adam and Eve didn’t wear clothes. They put clothes on after they ate the fruit, God didn’t tell them to, it was one of many things human has found out on their own. (Though what Joshua quoted is still true, but is so even if the woman wear clothes.)

To the author of this: no I don’t see this as pornography, humans can be beautiful as little else, I think. Nude does not equal pornography.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:03:08 +0000

thanks joshua- i agree with you. while i think it is sometimes natural to look at nude pictures, i also believe that Jesus wore clothes for a reason. Adam and Eve wore clothes because we are supposed to possess a modesty that befits God’s image of us. why sell our souls to look at nude women when we could look at other pictures without nudity?? it all depends on the person’s view but i think it safer to look at more thought-evoking pictures. as for objectifying women, thats exactly what ur at Thom because u say to look at women as images firstly before lookin at te as a person…

By: Thom

Thom — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:22:31 +0000

Ask the question: “Is the photo to artistically enrich or to exploit and debase?”
The photo in question might not be very good in some folks eyes, mine included, but it certainly is not aimed at exploiting and debasing. Indeed, one could see it as part of a series in terms of the photographers skill development over time.

Dear Joshua
Have you considered looking at the image, first as an image, then as a nude person, then at the pose and surroundings etc etc, or do you just leap straight to naked=lust=bad=burn?

Have you also thought that Jesus was actually referring to the sin of depersonalising and objectifying women?

By: Andrew Kong

Andrew Kong — Wed, 30 May 2007 10:50:43 +0000

I don’t think it is porn at all. A lot depends on the ethos of the image, as influenced by the intent (to arouse luse or seduce another) of the model / photographer / artist. The ethos of the viewer is also to be considered. To the pure , all things are pure. If the image causes Joshua to lust, then indeed it is good that he exercise custody of his eye and look away. However he must not impose his own fallen standard on all although he might want others to exercise prudence. The Sisteine Chapel is full of nudes that are able to glorify God and creation. Pope John Paul II has written much on this aspect in his Theology of the Body.