Coreyb Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I have been in hundreds, nay, thousands of Mormon households and can think of one instance of nude art on display in someone's home. I know when I was a child my Mother would rip pages out of books if they had drawings of nude Greek gods or anything of the like. Other Mormons I have known seem to have the same attitude: Nudity=Pornography. Is this a common attitude towards nudity amongst the Mormons that ya'll know?
bluebell Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I personally don't think that all nudity is pornographic. However, that doesn't mean that I believe non pornographic nudity is ok for children to see. As far as how other Mormons feel about it I'm not sure. It's not a subject I've ever really discussed with other Mormons, other than a couple of friends majoring in art who had to take nude model classes. 1
Buckeye Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) Mormons have changed a bit over time. Back in 1906 the church was okay with publishing a partially-nude photograph (yes, photo, not a painting) in the Juvenile Instructor magazine: http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2008/07/17/pre-correlation-art-or-they-just-dont-illustrate-the-kids-magazine-like-they-used-to/ (WARNING. DOUBLE-WARNING. THIS LINK LEADS TO NUDITY IN A CHURCH MAGAZINE) Also, in my home growing up we subscribed to Nat Geo, which occasionally contained nude pictures of various cultures being studied. We never pinned the photos up in the family room, though. Edited November 18, 2014 by Buckeye 1
Buckeye Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Another point to consider: The church's scriptures contain a depiction of at least one nude figure - see facsimile 2 to the book of Abraham (at least if you go by the translation of the facsimile agreed to by Egyptologists).
thesometimesaint Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Nakedness of the human body in and of itself is not pornographic. The overly and overt sexualization of the human body is. 4
LoudmouthMormon Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 My grandparents were oldschool LDS. Members of the Sons & Daughters of the pioneers. Bookcases full of books by LDS authors on every gospel topic you can imagine. Lots of genealogy, lots of church, all the time. Christmas and Thanksgiving in the '70's and '80's at their house with my many aunts and uncles, bazilion cousins - never short of opening prayers and scripture reading. They had, between the piano and the organ, a full-size replica statue of the Venus de Milo. (If you haven't seen the original, she stands over 6 feet tall and is muy topless.) My male cousins and I grew up around that thing - and I have it on good authority that I wasn't the only pre-teen grandkid with a "my first copped feel" story involving that cold white stone. The presence of the thing caused no small amount of cogdis discussions among the kids and us grandkids, as we sought to reconcile the presence of the stone naked chick in the same room where we learned what a gospel-centered home should look like. (I'm usually not a fan of the notion cognitive dissonance related to LDS faith, but in this case, I think it fits.)
Rob Osborn Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 It used to be that showing a woman's ankle was hard core pornography. In some cultures showing any skin besides the hands and arms is not appropriate while in others a woman can nearly be completely nude and be appropriate. Culture conditioni g has alot to do with it. It just shows how we can be conditioned to culture traditions and how that effects the brain and what turns us on. Funny thing indeed!
rpn Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Just because something is "art" doesn't mean it is appropriate or required to expose our children to it in our own home. (And my guess is that members who love the art do display it in their home, and probably there aren't many who display venus di milo in their living rooms.)
The Nehor Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 My grandparents were oldschool LDS. Members of the Sons & Daughters of the pioneers. Bookcases full of books by LDS authors on every gospel topic you can imagine. Lots of genealogy, lots of church, all the time. Christmas and Thanksgiving in the '70's and '80's at their house with my many aunts and uncles, bazilion cousins - never short of opening prayers and scripture reading. They had, between the piano and the organ, a full-size replica statue of the Venus de Milo. (If you haven't seen the original, she stands over 6 feet tall and is muy topless.) My male cousins and I grew up around that thing - and I have it on good authority that I wasn't the only pre-teen grandkid with a "my first copped feel" story involving that cold white stone. The presence of the thing caused no small amount of cogdis discussions among the kids and us grandkids, as we sought to reconcile the presence of the stone naked chick in the same room where we learned what a gospel-centered home should look like. (I'm usually not a fan of the notion cognitive dissonance related to LDS faith, but in this case, I think it fits.)And a bunch of boys develop a fetish for armless women. 2
Popular Post cinepro Posted November 18, 2014 Popular Post Posted November 18, 2014 Mormons have changed a bit over time. Back in 1906 the church was okay with publishing a partially-nude photograph (yes, photo, not a painting) in the Juvenile Instructor magazine: http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2008/07/17/pre-correlation-art-or-they-just-dont-illustrate-the-kids-magazine-like-they-used-to/ (WARNING. DOUBLE-WARNING. THIS LINK LEADS TO NUDITY IN A CHURCH MAGAZINE) I think I've found my Christmas card for this year. (Insert Seinfeld reference). 5
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Is this a common attitude towards nudity amongst the Mormons that ya'll know? Nope. My father, amongst other things (farmer, newspaperman), was a part-time professional photographer, and I grew up in a devout, Christ-centred home filled with magazines containing artistic nudes. (Family consisted of eight people in a two-bedroom/one-bathroom home, so there was plenty of far-less-artistic nudity at home as well, and my parents explicitly taught us not to be prudish for purely practical reasons.) Currently my nearest LDS neighbours have an abstract nude with a pomegranate hanging on their lounge-room wall, and several pieces of nude or partially nude art are to be found in my bishop's home. 2
LOSTONE Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I grew up with artists around me and I do art myself from different mediums. Art is very, very subjective in what it is and how it is viewed by others. Dare I not say what art is or isn’t to someone. To do would be foolish of me and so ignorant.However, just because are is so subjective, does not make it a mandatory reason to accept it or allow it. That is a comfort thing for the person to decided. As a Christian and dad, I do encourage artistic thinking, but not nude mediums for anyone under legal age or of a grace of maturity to understand it.The statue of David to me is very much art. Be it nudity, it is not porn. Porn is taking the nude body and making indirectly or directly some form of sexual interests. The statue of David does not do this at all. Would I have it in my home for others to see? Visitors, Christians, family members? Yes, but to anyone under the age of maturity, I would first want to explain to them about the statue and the aspect of it being nude art versus pornography. It might be an opportunity to teach and learn rather than feel dirty or a shame.For me, the nudity in are and the nudity in porn is very clearly define in the objective structure of the art itself and the original intentions of the artist. I would not just put nude stuff in my home and call it art to justify it being there. It would first have to be something I would say is actual nude art and not porn. Plus, I would have to value it as art to a point of wanting to display it for enjoyment of me and others. Currently, I have no nude art and sure in the bloody hell no porn anywhere in my house or my computer or attached to my life. Just me. Art is so subjective. 1
toon Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 We have some nude art in our house. My wife is an artist, so we have plenty of etchings, drawings, paintings, etc., all over the place in her studio. I don't know off the top of my head if anything nude has been hung or displayer, but they're lying around. No big deal. I don't know of too many households, Mormon or not, that have nude art on display. If anything, the vast majority of households have really bad art (Bob Ross, RIP) irrespective of religion. 1
cinepro Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 We've been taught that our bodies are Temples, and that we should have pictures of Temples on our walls, so it would almost be bad not to have a few tasteful nudes adorning our living room walls. 3
pogi Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) I like to dabble in oil-painting and drawing. There is something about drawing the human figure which gives you a much more profound respect and awe for the creation of our bodily temples. When you combine the art of the human figure with the knowledge of anatomy and physiology it makes for quite a spiritual experience. I have taken figure drawing classes and have had no problem getting a temple recommend. My wife has been a nude model for a very reputable local artist as well. We have debated displaying the paintings of her on our wall, as they really are magnificent paintings, but worry that it might make our home-teachers a little uncomfortable Edited November 18, 2014 by pogi 1
mfbukowski Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I have been in hundreds, nay, thousands of Mormon households and can think of one instance of nude art on display in someone's home. I know when I was a child my Mother would rip pages out of books if they had drawings of nude Greek gods or anything of the like. Other Mormons I have known seem to have the same attitude: Nudity=Pornography. Is this a common attitude towards nudity amongst the Mormons that ya'll know?Nope
BCSpace Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) Nakedness of the human body in and of itself is not pornographic. The overly and overt sexualization of the human body is. Devil's Advocate question: Could worrying about the display of nude or semi-nude images in certain cases be considered overly or overt sexualization? In other words, by reacting negatively or indignantly to truly artistic and tasteful nudity (if such exists and that can certainly be debated), are we inadvertently calling too much attention to it and creating negative feelings for our own bodies and those of others or inadvertently awakening sexual desire in ourselves and others? Having said that, I realize that what is often considered 'tasteful' nudity today in say, ancient Greek art and statuary, is presentism because it was often displayed or advertised in a pornographic/prostitution contexts in those same ancient times. Edited November 18, 2014 by BCSpace 1
cinepro Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Devil's Advocate question: Could worrying about the display of nude or semi-nude images in certain cases be considered overly or overt sexualization? In other words, by reacting to truly artistic and tasteful nudity (if such exists and that can certainly be debated), are we inadvertently calling too much attention to it and creating negative feelings for our own bodies and those of others or inadvertently awakening sexual desire in ourselves and others? Having said that, I realize that what is often considered 'tasteful' nudity today in say, ancient Greek art and statuary, is presentism because it was often displayed or advertised in a pornographic/prostitution contexts in those same ancient times. Pornography + Time = Art 3
pogi Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) Pornography + Time = Art I think what BCSpace is asking is, could Art + Time (boredom/loneliness) = Pornography. I suppose so. One must use wisdom in all things. I think that pornography, in a lot of ways, is in the eye of the beholder. Edited November 18, 2014 by pogi
california boy Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) I was an art major at BYU. As a freshman one of the required classes was figure drawing. Unlike almost any other university in the world, the models at BYU wore leotards and swimming suits. The instructor personally found the BYU policy ridiculous to the point that he told the class to buy a Playboy so that they could understand the human form better. Yeah I was the only one in my dorm that had a Playboy. The irony is, I am gay and could care less about looking at naked women from a sexual point of view. I personally found the paintings of Arnold Friedburg in the BoM of Nephi and the Strippling warriors way more erotic. lol. as far as I know, this "almost naked" model is still policy at BYU. Though I wonder if a professor would instruct their students to still pick up a Playboy for reference material. An interesting question. Would a Playboy centerfold be considered pornography when an art student is using it for reference material?? Edited November 18, 2014 by california boy
california boy Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Pornography + Time = ArtI think most ancient artist and the societies they lived in would be appalled that any of their work would be considered pornographic. But then I am personally appalled that anyone thinks the vast majority of nude art is considered pornographic by some people in todays society.
The Nehor Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Pornography + Time = Art Pretty much. We've been taught that our bodies are Temples, and that we should have pictures of Temples on our walls, so it would almost be bad not to have a few tasteful nudes adorning our living room walls. That depends. What is a nude comparable to building-wise? Unfinished? Walls ripped out?
pogi Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 That depends. What is a nude comparable to building-wise? Unfinished? Walls ripped out? Restored to it's original form and purity.
Recommended Posts