Beauty or blasphemy

Good post by Joe a couple weeks ago (I’m behind on my Google Reader reading :)) on art and the modern world, specifically about nudity:

Honestly, I think that part of the problem we have as a society today is that the adversary has pushed our righteous desire to avoid immorality to the other extreme, where we become ashamed of the beauty of our own creation by our Heavenly Father. When any form of nudity becomes pornographic in our eyes, we reject our own bodies as obscene.

I used to be at that other extreme, but I agree with Joe that nudity itself doesn’t have to be pornographic. As he says, “The Lord does not create things that are dirty — he only creates beauty.” And the human body is a thing of beauty.

That said, I don’t quite know where the line is that separates appropriate nudity from pornography. I suspect it varies from person to person, of course, and it certainly has something to do with how sexualized the image is. A celebration of the human body as created by God is markedly different from something intended to arouse procreative passions and stir them into a frenzy. The opposite ends of the spectrum are fairly easy to spot; what about the middle area, though? (Personally, I’d far rather err on the side of being too conservative, but at the same time I don’t want to mistakenly ostracize art that really is okay — to label good as evil, that is.)

Thoughts?

As luck would have it, I just took a Sex and Gender class, am currently in Women Studies, and will TA the Sex and Gender class in the spring. I’ve gone over this subject for a class and you can see everyone’s thoughts on the subject of Art v Pornography here: http://byupsych.wordpress.com/discussion-topics/pornography/

Here’s what I contributed:
To an extent I would say that ‘Porn is in the eye of the beholder’. Pres. Kimball once said that a boy and a girl can kiss and while the girl may be white as snow, the boy may be sinning (very liberally paraphrasing). I think you know (and the Lord knows) what is in your mind and heart. My friend is an art major and sees the human body as truly the pinnacle of God’s creation and as something that is divinely beautiful! When nude art is properly done she thinks it’s a grand celebration of said beauty. I think this is true and if we all thought as purely as they did in the Garden nudity would not be a problem at all.

However, the opposing vice is that people will always be tempted to see the nude art in lewd and shady ways. A nude painting may be viewed by half the patrons as a wonderful testament to the creation and gift of life, while the other half see it in a more degrading manner. So the question is: Should freedom of speech prevail and let the sinners take responsibility for their own thoughts? Should we run the risk of exposing children to ‘adult material’ and take it all down instead?

I personally can see both arguments -I actually enjoy art a lot and seeing breasts in a setting like the MOMA just doesn’t do it for me- but in the end my opinion is: given the problem it causes, I think the body can be celebrated clothed/draped (even if it’s scant) just as easily as fully naked. I think it’s a shame that Satan would ruin something so sacred for us, but that’s what he’s here to do.

One more note: Remember meaning making– Venus naked on a couch (or sea shell or whatever) vs. ‘Trixie Hotstuff’ naked on a couch in a Penthouse– what’s the difference? I’d submit motivation/ calculation. I don’t believe Venus was meant to be hung in Nudie-club bathrooms while Hustler and Playboy were designed with less than reputable intentions.

However, I believe the artists intentions are only half the story. I suggest that YOUR interpretation also needs to go into the calculation. Someone could just as easily be aroused by Trixie as Venus as someone with a fetish getting stimulated by a cartoon character on a kids TV show. Does that make it pornography?

Well, I’m biased on this one *grin*, but I do have to say that I agree to a point with George. While I tend to be on the liberal side as far as art goes (just my background as an artist), I do try to err on the side of caution when actually displaying art with nudity. I don’t want to cause anyone to stumble :).

I also agree that the body CAN be celebrated just as effectively when clothed or draped. The issue I have is when people criticize artists who choose not to clothe their subjects. I guess it’s particularly in the American culture–we tend to be rather puritanical when it comes to nudity. Obviously we don’t go to the same extent as some of the middle-eastern cultures, but we still tend to be much more uptight about the human form than much of the world. And, in my experience, the forbidden is always what the adversary is able to exploit. In other words, I believe that we bring some of the issues which can be caused upon ourselves. Don’t know if I’m making sense, though–it’s late :).

I only look at renaissance paintings for the articles, anyway.

As an art history grad student, I think about this all the time. Last semester in a 202 class I was TA-ing for, I was responsible to teach the lesson on early photography. As soon as photography was invented, it was used for pornography. I put up two slides next to each other, Ingres’ Grand Odalisque and a early black and white photograph by Durieu of a nude. I asked the class if they consider either to be pornography, and while the conversation went in a direction I did not intend, it made me think at least. It’s impossible to tell the artist’s intent, and I think it’s a fruitless venture to try. I think it depends on the person and how they view it - so some viewers will sexualize any image of a nude body, while others can appreciate it. You just have to know yourself. I do, however, believe some art truly glorifies the body God created, but equally there are works that denigrate it. I could give loads of examples, but maybe I better not :). Anyway, just my thoughts.

rikker wins Best Comment Joke of the Year. Well done.

Ben! wow, what a subject! i actually am probably a bit more liberal (but still on the conservative side) about nudity in art. i think many of the statues and paintings were not meant to degrade the human body, but to lift it up and celebrate it, as you put. i think it is now, when we have been exposed too often to inappropriate nudity, that we tend to shun all of it! anyways, i just wanted to say hi and say that you should visit us! reed is huge! we took him to the doctor today and he is 12 pounds 6 ounces and 23 1/4 inches! love ya dude!

This reminds me of your immodesty-at-the-pool post that you wrote like forever ago. :) I say, let’s build Mormons their own exclusive pools and their own art museums. That way, the LDS can happily experience only garment-appropriate swimming suits and art. They’ll never have to wonder whether their eyes are resting on something inappropriate, and the rest of us will be spared their screaming children.

Okay maybe that was a little too harsh today. Kudos #2 to rikker on the joke!

George: Agreed, it’s a two-sided thing. And the question (for me, at least) becomes not so much what’s appropriate or not for me (I can tell if something has crossed the line), but what’s appropriate for, say, my children. (I’m thinking a few years ahead. :P)

Joe: Exactly, you don’t want to make anyone stumble. I also agree both that the body can be celebrated clothed/draped just as well as nude and that the forbidden nature of the human form has brought upon us some of those issues. It’d be really nice to shed those (weak pun not really intended but whatever :P), but I don’t know if that’s even possible in our culture. Society seems to be more at ease with nudity, yes, but in a highly sexualized way. And that’s not what we want.

Rikker: LOL! :)

Shelley: I think you’re generally right as to the artist’s intent, but there are some exceptions — I mean, it’s a pretty safe bet that anything in Playboy or Penthouse is going to be sexualized. But regardless, the onus really does fall almost entirely on the viewer.

Janae: Thanks for your comment! And yes, I do need to stop by and visit y’all sometime — Reed’ll be a grown-up before you know it at this rate. :)

Ali: Haha, I had a feeling somebody would mention that post. :) As for the LDS-only bit, you do realize that it’s not just Mormons who care about modesty, right? Christians, Jews, Muslims, and plenty of other cultures and religions, to name just a few. A Return to Modesty was written by a Jewish girl, for example. It’s easy to focus on us as Mormons because that’s where our viewpoint is (or has been), but I think most people with family-friendly values will care (to one degree or another) about the topic.

The reason it matters is captured nicely by Will and Ariel Durrant in their book The Lessons of History: “No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history. A youth boiling with hormones will wonder why he should not give full freedom to his sexual desires; and if he is unchecked by custom, morals, or laws, he may ruin his life before he matures sufficiently to understand that sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group.”

And it’s not just religious people that care about modesty either. ;)

Whoops didn’t mean to submit…

Anyway, yeah let’s create “family-friendly” swimming pools, that would be so awesome! And then everyone else could swim in peace in the immodest pools where they allow bikinis, oh my!

Okay, yes I am a little bitter about the pool right outside my window. It used to be such an oasis and then a bunch of young lds families moved in at the same time and its nothing but screeching from dawn until dusk. sigh

If we have LDS standard swimming pools and art, that would take agency away. It’s up to us to avert our eyes, to judge art how we see fit, and to make appropriate decisions. It would be all too easy if it were all handed to us.

I am an artist. My mother before me was an artist. I am a convert. I received a BA from BYU in Fine Art and Design. I am also a mother to seven, four of which are sons, three are daughters, and five grandsons. All this goes into how I view things.

I have been through art Museums from Hawaii to Washington and have a library of art books on the Museums of the world. I run a private online academy. I found it very interesting that with all of the resources I have, I still had my eyes opened as I put together an art appreciation and history program. I realized that there is a huge difference between viewing paintings for a brief experience in a museum, or even in a book full of pictures, and experiencing art by living with it. My program consisted of becoming intimately aware of the details of a piece by placing it on the fridge and living with it for a week.While bare bosoms among still lifes, landscapes and portraits may raise an eye brow or two, confronting it every time you open the fridge, may not be what you want your deacon son viewing every time he opens your fridge. Especially when teaching him at the same time about modesty and sexual purity.

I have heard the concept of beautiful body is art not pornography for years.
Then when I researched art works to represent different artists, I had an education I did not expect. Having a large collection of museum book, having been through so many exhibits, and drawing life studies myself, I was not prepared for my experience. Some of the paintings that were painted by great artists I had studied were new to me and suspiciously absent from all of the museums and art texts. They were pornographic in their positions and demeanor. They were down right vulgar or lewd. Yes, these were not put into the books and museums. Why? Perhaps those who ran those venues respected public decency, or perhaps it is a PR thing
to let us believe that nude art is “all about beauty.” Shame on our dirty minds.

I am no prude. I grew up on the beaches of Hawaii, and before becoming a member of the church at 17, I wore a French bikini. My mom painted nudes. My dad had a nude painting in his home. However, when I became a Latter-day Saint, I no longer let the world define things for me.

Yes, the body is a thing of beauty. That is by Divine Design. It is also sacred, it is the temple of our spirit. That spirit is a child of God. Sacred things are not something to cheapen with public display. We do not publish films of what goes on in the temple, not because it is evil, because it is not, but because it is sacred.

I have had the experience of teaching my children about their bodies and their sexuality. We have open and frank communication. They understand that their body is not dirty and that it is sacred.

Beautiful and Sacred. As far as the purpose of great artists and their nudity in their work, people can only speculate. Just because an artist claimed something, it does not automatically true. I will not judge their heart or purpose. I won’t defend it either.

I agree with “I think the body can be celebrated clothed/draped just as easily as fully naked.” In fact, I find that catching the drape of the fabric and its texture can make or break a piece, even in sculpture.

I would ask that people be not so quick to judge those of us who do not feel nudity in art is appropriate. It is not out of shame. Nor do we feel it is dirty.
We are reverencing the beauty by respecting the sacred.

Ali: Um, it’s not just LDS families that have screechy kids, you know. :P

A: Good point. (Though I do think that there’s a limit beyond which society does need to do something about it.)

Donna: Also a good point.