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.

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 We do not publish films of what goes on in the temple, not because it is evil, because it is not, but because it is sacred.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.

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

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.”

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