nudity in art?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

can nudity just be art? please don't vote in this if you already voted in the other

  • yes

    Votes: 27 50.0%

  • no

    Votes: 12 22.2%

  • if it's only a silhouette, yes

    Votes: 1 1.9%

  • sometimes

    Votes: 14 25.9%
  • Total voters
    54
Powemm said:
so I put myself on the other side of this table...looking at the view of those it offends or have a problem with it ...
and the question I'm asking myself while sitting there is ....first... Is it true? checking with God "first", before my thoughts or opinions get in the way .
Being lead to Gods original plan .., Adam and eve ... Both naked and both created (by design/art) in "His" image ... So I'm choosing to believe God ...
Second thing I'm asking myself " what am I doing in this room to start with if I can't handle it ?
Click to expand...

According to that thinking, all nudity would be permissive. God's design may have been intended a certain way, but it did not stay that way. The world fell into sin, and changed the perspective. When they received 'awareness' they saw a wrongness in being nude in front of each other. That has not changed. We are not in a renewed world or mind. We are still in a fallen world, and under the curse of sin. We cannot pretend to live in Gods original intended plan until sin is removed from the earth.
Personally i think the idea that a nude in an 'art' base is ok, but nude in a lewd sense is not acceptable is silly. They're both nude. Calling one art doesn't make it less nude. Nude is nude, whether its a porn flick or a 'tasteful art picture', either way i don't want to see some guys junk or whatever else.
 
ok. i think there's a pretty varied opinion here about it. @agirlandherguitar -yeah some of that stuff sounds atrocious. i do know how out-there artists can be. if you think you want to offer an opinion on a specific piece, please private message me.
 
seoulsearch said:
This is a great thread.

I have a dear friend who is an ordained minister and artist... and her collection of work on her website includes one female nude.

I myself feel there is a very fine line between art and lust, so as for myself, I would opt not to have any such images in my home, but that's just me.

My only exception would be if my husband felt the need to have "artful" female nudes, for any reason.

I would then make sure that there are just as many "artful" nude male images displayed opposite of his "art" collection... just to be fair.

A female nude would make me feel insecure. Any man who didn't respect this about me would have to be ok with me displaying a prominent "artful" male nude as a balance.
Click to expand...

haha that's funny that that would be your motive for balancing it out. i guess if it were in my home, i would definitely not want male nudes on the wall.
 
ijustwanttheTruth said:
LOL! i think about it sometimes :D on especially hot days. lol.
Click to expand...
Well to be honest,I avoid going into Wal-Mart at all costs. lol I've lived here for like 9 or 10 yrs maybe now & been to ours maybe 10 times. Wal-Mart is terrifying year round,let alone summer. People might as well be naked...not "good naked" either.
I'm not sure when or how it became acceptable in American culture for women (sorry but that's all I see doing this) to go out in public wearing pajama bottoms so thin,you can clearly see they are wearing nothing else...perhaps a bra,if yer lucky & either flip flops or my personal fav...bedroom slippers. Really? REALLY??? is it so bad you can't take 5 seconds to throw a pair of jeans on??? NOW THAT'S ART! lol
 
iTOREtheSKY said:
I'm not sure when or how it became acceptable in American culture for women (sorry but that's all I see doing this) to go out in public wearing pajama bottoms so thin,you can clearly see they are wearing nothing else...perhaps a bra,if yer lucky & either flip flops or my personal fav...bedroom slippers. Really? REALLY??? is it so bad you can't take 5 seconds to throw a pair of jeans on??? NOW THAT'S ART! lol
Click to expand...

trust me. i hear you. that's completely rude. i wish it wasnt socially acceptable. see, i feel that there's a difference between going out of the house completely naked or half clothed, and putting nudity in a piece of art.
 
meh just a random nude body isnt going to do anything to me. If the picture was overtly sexualin nature then maybe, but just sans clothe, no effect
 
Ugly said:
According to that thinking, all nudity would be permissive. God's design may have been intended a certain way, but it did not stay that way. The world fell into sin, and changed the perspective. When they received 'awareness' they saw a wrongness in being nude in front of each other. That has not changed. We are not in a renewed world or mind. We are still in a fallen world, and under the curse of sin. We cannot pretend to live in Gods original intended plan until sin is removed from the earth.
Personally i think the idea that a nude in an 'art' base is ok, but nude in a lewd sense is not acceptable is silly. They're both nude. Calling one art doesn't make it less nude. Nude is nude, whether its a porn flick or a 'tasteful art picture', either way i don't want to see some guys junk or whatever else.
Click to expand...

Best point ever made on this thread.
 
Nekked art is distracting (to me) in a non-sexual way.

One of my sisters is an artist, and while I think she is very good at what she does, it seems that at least half of her pieces (paintings, sketches, sculptures) need to put some clothes on. Because when I look at them, all I can think is, "Poor girl is gonna freeze to death" or "Wow, she'd look great in a red dress".

Basically, I just completely miss the point of the piece.

Also, just like the guys don't want to see another's guy's um, junk...I don't really want to see another woman's various woman bits in all their nekked glory.
 
Why don't you just try posting nudity on these forums? It's just art, right?
 
Ugly said:
According to that thinking, all nudity would be permissive. God's design may have been intended a certain way, but it did not stay that way. The world fell into sin, and changed the perspective. When they received 'awareness' they saw a wrongness in being nude in front of each other. That has not changed. We are not in a renewed world or mind. We are still in a fallen world, and under the curse of sin. We cannot pretend to live in Gods original intended plan until sin is removed from the earth.
Personally i think the idea that a nude in an 'art' base is ok, but nude in a lewd sense is not acceptable is silly. They're both
nude. Calling one art doesn't make it less nude. Nude is nude, whether its a porn flick or a 'tasteful art picture', either way i don't want to see some guys junk or whatever else.
Click to expand...


Lol... Love the last sentence ....
I understand ... And good points ... I dont have control over everyone else's mind ... Heck I didn't even have control over my own about this subject.. I use to be like judge Judy on it because of childhood issues. I really had nothing to do with changing my mind about it except get into agreement with god and His original plan for us .. he transformed my thinking .. to keep the peace and because of the fall you correctly stated , certainly I wouldn't go running around like that .. however it is not impossible for mans mind not to go back to Gods original plan ... He uses the fall as an excuse not too let God transform his thinking or view of it .. God never changes ....I can tell you , had it not been for God .. Nudity wouldn't exist for me...
That's how affected or should i say "infected" my mind was .. Good points ...and good your pointing out other aspects as well :) we need all the information put out there since people are coming from different places ... thumbs up st ugly ..I agree with your perspective on it ..
 
TheAristocat said:
What do you think about the Scripture I listed? For instance, why does it prohibit building steps to an altar?
Click to expand...

it is about the ceremony... to maintain reverence and holiness focus of the ceremony. if say... God didn't specify no steps up... and that is what was done.... SOME people might see under the skirts and SOME of those people might be distracted (in what ever way their thoughts led) from the CEREMONY..ie., loose focus. No different than if I had to sit in front of a fat pastor wearing too small a shirt pulling at the buttons and his belly showing thru... distracting... I 'd hafta go buy him a bigger shirt right after!
NOWHERE in the bible is there a principal of NEVER SEE NAKEDNESS.... the chasm here is immaturity coupled with legalism and mature freedom in Christ. I hope you bridge that chasm sometime in the future as you continue in faith... not everybody does.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK - I chimed in with this thread, voting "yes."

"Venus" and Michaelangelo's "David" have been mentioned as classics regarding this subject. But I also believe that nudity is valid as art in modern works as well.

One example is when I was teaching, an incredibly talented art teacher showed me a work of hers - a nude charcoal (she is known for this medium) of herself. It was anything but erotic. Her stance and facial expression showed her as hardened by life's experiences. It was actually very disturbing....not the kind of art that one puts on the living room wall, but art nonetheless.

Still, there are some who would get "turned on" by this. Does some getting all pervy over a modern nude art work or even David and Venus, for that matter, invalidate the work as art? I don't think so. I think artist's intent needs to be considered.
 
CatHerder said:
OK - I chimed in with this thread, voting "yes."

"Venus" and Michaelangelo's "David" have been mentioned as classics regarding this subject. But I also believe that nudity is valid as art in modern works as well.

One example is when I was teaching, an incredibly talented art teacher showed me a work of hers - a nude charcoal (she is known for this medium) of herself. It was anything but erotic. Her stance and facial expression showed her as hardened by life's experiences. It was actually very disturbing....not the kind of art that one puts on the living room wall, but art nonetheless.

Still, there are some who would get "turned on" by this. Does some getting all pervy over a modern nude art work or even David and Venus, for that matter, invalidate the work as art? I don't think so. I think artist's intent needs to be considered.
Click to expand...

thanks catherder. i agree. i feel like there's a time and a place to be laid bare...so to speak. and i think art is one of those places. thanks for sharing. i can tell it's a bit of a hot button issue by the way some of you guys are responding...with defensiveness.

but that says to me that nudity is not something you (the anti's) are able to look out without it affecting you. i suppose it's simply not the same for everyone. naked i came from my mother's womb and naked i shall depart.
 
I don't really see anyone being defensive or abrasive. You asked for opinions, and you're going to get both sides, sometimes passionately. ;)

I think there have been some very good points brought up, on both sides. I don't quite know what I think yet so it's been nice to read the input from both viewpoints.
 
BarlyGurl said:
it is about the ceremony... to maintain reverence and holiness focus of the ceremony. if say... God didn't specify no steps up... and that is what was done.... SOME people might see under the skirts and SOME of those people might be distracted (in what ever way their thoughts led) from the CEREMONY..ie., loose focus. No different than if I had to sit in front of a fat pastor wearing too small a shirt pulling at the buttons and his belly showing thru... distracting... I 'd hafta go buy him a bigger shirt right after!
NOWHERE in the bible is there a principal of NEVER SEE NAKEDNESS.... the chasm here is immaturity coupled with legalism and mature freedom in Christ. I hope you bridge that chasm sometime in the future as you continue in faith... not everybody does.
Click to expand...

I think I'll agree with you on this point. Nudity does not belong in a holy setting where our focus should be on God. Now we're not told if when David danced he was completely naked, though it hints at that. We don't know if it was wrong per se. I agree that it depends on the situation in which the nudity is presented. I've seen Schindler's List and I'm not enticed by the nudes in the concentration camp scene.

I believe that partial nudity in art is harmless most of the time. But, again, it depends on the depravity of the audience in this fallen world. I've seen women gawk at a man's hip flexors because of what they hinted was below them. So it's not that men are depraved and women are innocent in this regard.

I know that God in Isaiah 20 commanded Isaiah to walk around nude. I don't believe God would order one to do something sinful. But the purpose was not, "Look how tasteful Isaiah is." The purpose was, "so the king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared—to Egypt’s shame." I just have to wonder why Christians support full nudity in art when the human figure can be represented beautifully with partial nudity and the situation becomes much less murky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back