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
What... Jimi never came back to comment about the statue of David????:confused:
 
ijustwanttheTruth said:
random thought: there was a florida driver? in a hello kitty car. huge cat stencil on the side and the headlights of the car had hot pink EYELASHES. to match....the driver was putting on HER lashes WHILE SHE DROVE. wasn't signalling, wasn't paying attention. ALMOST CAME INTO OUR VEHICLE trying to change lanes without looking. i wish i had reported her. but i didnt get a good enough look at the license plate. altho. maybe if you give a police report and say 'the car with the hot pink lashes is driving extremely dangerously', they'll know what you mean.

just keep in mind. not EVERYONE who bears that beloved cat is in their right mind. lol!
Click to expand...

When I lived in NC and they came up from FLA to be tourists somewhere, based on their driving we called them Floridiots.
 
Not allowed? Even though it's a classic sculpture from a gazillion years ago?
 
ijustwanttheTruth said:
yeah i was curious. i was pretty sure even tho it's a famous piece of art, that nudity is still not allowed in this forum.
Click to expand...


Ya know... for an assortment of things I notice every now and then in the threads... that DON'T get removed. I am kinda shocked that a classical sculpture known worldwide was removed... I assume for being "inappropriate"... good grief :rolleyes:. I suppose if we were discussing the particulars of prostate or breast cancer... any diagrams for illustration purposes would be removed also.:confused:
Be careful I see SKIN in some of your avatars!!!!
 
BarlyGurl said:
Ya know... for an assortment of things I notice every now and then in the threads... that DON'T get removed. I am kinda shocked that a classical sculpture known worldwide was removed... I assume for being "inappropriate"... good grief :rolleyes:. I suppose if we were discussing the particulars of prostate or breast cancer... any diagrams for illustration purposes would be removed also.:confused:
Be careful I see SKIN in some of your avatars!!!!
Click to expand...

you know as well as i do there are rules in this forum. nudity is simply not allowed no matter what it is. the site is kid tested, mother approved. keep your clothes on :)
 
Hey guys... look what I found!
<holds out a 10 foot pole>

<looks around and then looks up at the topic sign of the room>
Oh... umm...

<drops the pole and walks away>
 
I wonder if it's not so much a question, but should it be done. Some of you will probably roll your eyes, but oh well. A thought occur to me, "Should it be done if it will cause others to possibly sin?" "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Romans 14:13. Drinking [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]alcohol[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] itself is not a sin, unless you are drinking in front of someone who can't handle it, or you can't handle it. It's the same with nudity in artwork. If there is a potential to cause someone to sin, should it really be displayed, or even painted, photographed, etc? It doesn't matter what the artist thinks, but the viewer, as it is the viewer who has the reaction open looking at the artwork.
[/FONT]
 
ijustwanttheTruth said:
internet terms and conditions say that silhouettes don't count as nudity :)
Click to expand...

zeroturbulence said:
Maybe because its hard to tell from a silhouette if someone is wearing skinny jeans or not.
Click to expand...


You can tell on the back of the semi-flaps. If the intention is to make it look like nudity, it will come across as nudity. If it's not the intention, chances are, it will not come across as nudity.
 
Last edited:
Ugly said:
Wow, childish sounding comment. 'i can't have things my way so i'm going to blow everything out of proportion to make it all sound bad!' :mad:
Click to expand...

Oh stuff it Ugly, you are the one who is construing my comment to mean "i can't have things my way so i'm going to blow everything out of proportion to make it all sound bad!"... should I surmise it as an excuse for you to be petty? You can put your mad faced emoticon away and re-think WHO in this equation is blowing things out of proportion... sheesh!
 
I have actually been ruminating on this topic this for a few days... considering instances and what have you and bringing them into the light of scriptural principals and asking God for clarity. WHile I do agree, it is up to each to arrive at their "degree of liberty" according to "their measure of faith"... there is something I keep coming back to which I think is worth sharing. Art is about the media... not the object depicted. Following this premise... I have a strong impression that PHOTOGRAPHY is not inclusive in God's economy as an art form as it is an actual IMAGE... a permanent record of what the eye saw... which in the area of nudity is voyerism. Paint, clay, marble, paper mache', fabric ... what ever... are mediums used to create art... a photograph while being a pretty picture (of whatever) is just a record of what the eye saw.
While thinking my thinks... I realized this "principal" does harmonize with archeological and historical nudity forms found world wide.
That said, this principal conclusion... does not "over-rule" that art renderings can still be LEWD... which is not truly art... but a perversion of art... and indeed simply lewdness.
 
... there is something I keep coming back to which I think is worth sharing. Art is about the media... not the object depicted. Following this premise... I have a strong impression that PHOTOGRAPHY is not inclusive in God's economy as an art form as it is an actual IMAGE... a permanent record of what the eye saw... which in the area of nudity is voyerism. Paint, clay, marble, paper mache', fabric ... what ever... are mediums used to create art... a photograph while being a pretty picture (of whatever) is just a record of what the eye saw.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I can agree with this. Part of the artistic process is deciding WHAT to depict. A photographer will arrange things for a still life in much the same way as a painter would. (S)He also decides which part of the landscape to shoot, much like the plein air artists in their little french berets...dang! Now I want a croissant!

As far as nudity in photography being art? hmmmmmm.......
 
lol. do you ever get to a point in your own thoughts on a thread where you're just done ruminating and you throw your hands up and say 'whatever!' well. i'm at that point. lol. it doesn't mean you all can't keep talking amongst yourselves about this. by all means. do. but i think my mind is settled on that a body is just a body. we all have them. and if, at the end of the day, there is no foul intent or obvious lewdness or crudeness in a piece...nudity can be a part of it. bc after all. it's a part of creation. and all we, as artists CAN do is imitate the art that already exists. there is nothing new under the sun and all we do is recreate and reposition and re-express that which already is, through our unique God-given vantage point. glory be to God i think it's time to strip. lol. jk. but seriously. it's just part of what God made. we were intended to all be nude in the first place. i think i am for it. everything in it's place.
 
violakat said:
I wonder if it's not so much a question, but should it be done. Some of you will probably roll your eyes, but oh well. A thought occur to me, "Should it be done if it will cause others to possibly sin?" "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Romans 14:13. Drinking alcohol itself is not a sin, unless you are drinking in front of someone who can't handle it, or you can't handle it. It's the same with nudity in artwork. If there is a potential to cause someone to sin, should it really be displayed, or even painted, photographed, etc? It doesn't matter what the artist thinks, but the viewer, as it is the viewer who has the reaction open looking at the artwork.
Click to expand...

Nude art is not exactly something I would be displaying openly in my home, if I had any, which I probably never will. And I don't know of anyone else who does display it openly in their homes. Most nude artwork I know of has only been displayed in art museums and art shows and things like that, in which case the person attending should already have the knowledge that their will potentially be that kind of art work there, and should have the wisdom to look away if it does or will cause them problems. I don't see it as being much different than someone having to expose themselves at the doctors office, they trust the doctors not going to get too excited, and I assume the artist trusts the viewer to use wisdom and not be immature.
 
ijustwanttheTruth said:
lol. do you ever get to a point in your own thoughts on a thread where you're just done ruminating and you throw your hands up and say 'whatever!' well. i'm at that point. lol.
LOL... YEP.
we were intended to all be nude in the first place.
Click to expand...
I did coincidentally hear a radio discussion about this nudity topic also... The Jist of it was that across the board we may be in error about surmising that Adam and Eve where nude inthe Garden. SAying that they were created in GOd's image and that would suggest they were "Clothed" in light as the scripture says God is... and that it was sin that robbed them of this "clothing", hence finding themselves "NAKED" and having a desire to HIDE and cover themselves. then God came and made sacrifice of animals to give them clothes of animal skins... blah blah... you know the story. Just throwing that out there... your post made me think of it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back