The Nehor Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Restored to it's original form and purity.Buildings do not have an original pure form and our current bodies certainly are not pure or of perfect form.
strappinglad Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Every time I spend much time in a mall or Walmart, I am very, very grateful to whomever invented clothing. Funny how artists rarely paint anyone with a BMI over 30, Rubens not withstanding. Yet if they want to represent the human condition shouldn't at least 20% of the models be along that line. Oh, I see now that Calvin Klein thinks size 10 is plus size. Sorry.
The Nehor Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Every time I spend much time in a mall or Walmart, I am very, very grateful to whomever invented clothing. Funny how artists rarely paint anyone with a BMI over 30, Rubens not withstanding. Yet if they want to represent the human condition shouldn't at least 20% of the models be along that line. Oh, I see now that Calvin Klein thinks size 10 is plus size. Sorry. On the other hand living in a nudist colony might encourage a healthier diet and more exercise. I am in pretty good shape but if my abs and chest muscles were on display all the time I would spend more time on them.
katherine the great Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Devil's Advocate question: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. I'm not an historian so I'm not sure about that but could you give an example? Most nude art that I've seen displayed in ancient Brothels that was specifically meant to depict a brothel was definitely pornographic in nature. 1
pogi Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Buildings do not have an original pure form and our current bodies certainly are not pure or of perfect form. It is a building as the original architect intended. Strip out the 70's shag and wallpaper and expose the beautiful hardwood etc.
BCSpace Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 (edited) I think what BCSpace is asking is, could Art + Time (boredom/loneliness) = Pornography. I'm saying it's more like the observer effect (physics) in that calling attention to it often changes what it actually is or arouses in us, sexual desire or anger and indignation, that which would otherwise not have been aroused if we were more discerning. 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. I know it when I see it and I think a lot of people pretend to not know. But you do have the classical/ancient nude figures which some protest against and some cover the strategic parts with leaves. Edited November 19, 2014 by BCSpace
pogi Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 But you do have the classical/ancient nude figures which some protest against and some cover the strategic parts with leaves. I like that, "strategic parts." Exactly my point, it is in the eye of the beholder. Anything which causes you to lust should not be viewed by you, while it may be perfectly benign to another. We all know pornography when we see it, but I can almost guarantee you we will not all agree even when we are completely honest with ourselves.
BCSpace Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 (edited) I like that, "strategic parts." Exactly my point, it is in the eye of the beholder. Anything which causes you to lust should not be viewed by you, while it may be perfectly benign to another. We all know pornography when we see it, but I can almost guarantee you we will not all agree even when we are completely honest with ourselves. Indeed. While I understand the pornographic history behind some ancient works, I can look at them and not feel like I am looking at pornography. In the modern media there are many examples in which I feel like I am being presented porn or near porn. I think the difference may be that the ancient stuff is not being directed at me by it's creators, I am not the audience, I don't have an ancient oriental mind. Edited November 19, 2014 by BCSpace
Garden Girl Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Every time I spend much time in a mall or Walmart, I am very, very grateful to whomever invented clothing. Funny how artists rarely paint anyone with a BMI over 30, Rubens not withstanding. Yet if they want to represent the human condition shouldn't at least 20% of the models be along that line. Oh, I see now that Calvin Klein thinks size 10 is plus size. Sorry. The old Masters purposely used large-size women to give more interest in line and mass... sometimes they would use women in early/mid pregnancy to get the "roundness" they thought was best. Just pay attention to some of the nude figures in art of that era... Size 10 they weren't... GG
Calm Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 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?Not in my family, not in her family, don't remember nudes in my dad's family, but no one made any issue of it that I can remember, not an issue in my husband's family either and they are borne and bred Utahns.This is not to say we have displays of full frontal nudity, but we don't have pictures of clothed people either much...save photos, but no one would tear out pictures in art books and stuff.
Calm Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 I think most ancient artist and the societies they lived in would be appalled that any of their work would be considered pornographic.See Katherine's post #29.Pornography has been around in most cultures for a long, long, long time.Nudity in and of itself may not have been considered as such automatically, but porn was not exactly uncommon in a lot of cultures.
BlueDreams Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 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?Most people, period, don't have pictures of nude adorning their walls (especially front rooms). They may have books with nude art, but our overall culture (not immediately tied to mormon-centric thought) isn't a fan of nudes in the living room. But I have a partial nude in my bedroom and painted another that's at home. Neither are in the front room because the one's a self-portrait that I was experimenting with (it just seems a little weird to hang a partial nude of yourself just about anywhere) and the other my current roommate feels uncomfortable having in the front room though she likes the painting overall. It used to be in my living room before living with her. Overall we're (multiple western cultures) squirmish about nudity. Some Mormons may put some LDS rationale behind it, but it's not something actually lds-specific IMHO. With luv,BD 1
Calm Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 It is not only libraries in Utah or Mormon highly populated areas that have a problem with people coming in and cutting out nude pictures of art books.
california boy Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 (edited) See Katherine's post #29.Pornography has been around in most cultures for a long, long, long time.Nudity in and of itself may not have been considered as such automatically, but porn was not exactly uncommon in a lot of cultures.Maybe I am completely oblivious to this given my art background. But what works of art were once used as pornographic images in the past but now viewed as art????? Maybe if someone could give me an example of this I would better understand where this "ancient" pornography art comments are coming from. Do you have any examples? I have seen pornographic drawings and even statues that were clearly painted for the brothels in such places as Pompeii and even on vases. But those type of images are virtually absent from every art history book that shows the work of classical Greek, Roman, etc art. And they are STILL viewed as pornographic, not art. None are attributed to anyone that would be considered a credible artist. Edited November 19, 2014 by california boy
Calm Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 That is not what you said though. There were plenty of artists who intended their work as porn and it is still considered porn as far as I've seen. And I don't think I should be posting examples on the board...Your comment implied there was little porn in the past..."think most ancient artist and the societies they lived in would be appalled that any of their work would be considered pornographic"
volgadon Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 It is not only libraries in Utah or Mormon highly populated areas that have a problem with people coming in and cutting out nude pictures of art books. There are several boxes in the British Museum with the privates chiseled off of the Greek statues, so yeah.
giotto Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Maybe I am completely oblivious to this given my art background. But what works of art were once used as pornographic images in the past but now viewed as art????? Maybe if someone could give me an example of this I would better understand where this "ancient" pornography art comments are coming from. Do you have any examples? I have seen pornographic drawings and even statues that were clearly painted for the brothels in such places as Pompeii and even on vases. But those type of images are virtually absent from every art history book that shows the work of classical Greek, Roman, etc art. And they are STILL viewed as pornographic, not art. None are attributed to anyone that would be considered a credible artist.You can Google all sorts of images that are now standards in art history textbooks that were obviously meant for viewing with a less refined eye. Look up "Venus of Urbino," by Titian, "The Naked Maja," by Goya, and "Olympia," by Manet for just three examples.I have to say, California Boy, that your chosen avitar is of Vitruvian Man, drawn by Leonardo da Vinci and is very appropriate for this topic. It depicts the real intent of the nude in art as defined by the ancient Greeks and phrased by Protagoras: that man is the measure of all things.
volgadon Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 That is not what you said though. There were plenty of artists who intended their work as porn and it is still considered porn as far as I've seen. And I don't think I should be posting examples on the board...Your comment implied there was little porn in the past..."think most ancient artist and the societies they lived in would be appalled that any of their work would be considered pornographic" Yes, and no. Courbet painted several works for certain, ahem, collectors, and he also painted his most famous one (L'Origine du monde) off of a pornographic daguerreotype. The psychoanalyst Lacan reportedly showed it as a surprise to his guests, and then studied their reactions.
giotto Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 I remember years ago being persuaded by a group at church to give them a tour of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. We went through the galleries, looking and discussing art from ancient through Renaissance. When we got to this painting by Rosso Fiorentino, a late15th/ early 16th Italian Mannerist, the tour stopped. One member of the group was horrified to see Christ depicted nude, and nothing I could explain could turn away his offense. I guess if you are new to the idea of Western depictions of a human, and thus identifiable Christ (at least to the eyes of a 16th century Italian), this could be shocking. But I found it curious that the reaction of this man was as if I had shown him something blasphemous. Does this image give you a similar reaction?
The Nehor Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 I remember years ago being persuaded by a group at church to give them a tour of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. We went through the galleries, looking and discussing art from ancient through Renaissance. When we got to this painting by Rosso Fiorentino, a late15th/ early 16th Italian Mannerist, the tour stopped. One member of the group was horrified to see Christ depicted nude, and nothing I could explain could turn away his offense. I guess if you are new to the idea of Western depictions of a human, and thus identifiable Christ (at least to the eyes of a 16th century Italian), this could be shocking. But I found it curious that the reaction of this man was as if I had shown him something blasphemous. Does this image give you a similar reaction? I caused a scandal once when teaching Gospel Doctrine and described (in highly sanitized terms) how a crucifixion was done. When I suggested Jesus was probably naked some people argued against me using church art as a counterargument. I dropped the line of discussion as unedifying but wondered how many thought that the relatively bloodless and loincloth clad Jesus was a representation of what it actually would have been like. 1
BlueDreams Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 (edited) One member of the group was horrified to see Christ depicted nude, and nothing I could explain could turn away his offense. I guess if you are new to the idea of Western depictions of a human, and thus identifiable Christ (at least to the eyes of a 16th century Italian), this could be shocking. But I found it curious that the reaction of this man was as if I had shown him something blasphemous. Does this image give you a similar reaction? No....I'm offended by disproportionate depiction of Christ in the mannerist style. I mean it's Christ, you'd think as a symbol of perfection you'd make him look perfect and stick with the more purist rennassance pursuit for correct proportions. How dare he go muck up art with perceived innovations :::art nerd returned back to closet::: ....but seriously, not at all. But that's hardly all that different in my mind than the mostly naked Jesus paintings when he's hanging from the cross. I don't get why this would be considered sacrilegious. Edited November 19, 2014 by BlueDreams 1
giotto Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 I caused a scandal once when teaching Gospel Doctrine and described (in highly sanitized terms) how a crucifixion was done. When I suggested Jesus was probably naked some people argued against me using church art as a counterargument. I dropped the line of discussion as unedifying but wondered how many thought that the relatively bloodless and loincloth clad Jesus was a representation of what it actually would have been like.And yet the naked Christ is often depicted in Western art. Here is an example by none other than Jan Van Eyck. This one is in the Met in New York. I believe that the idea was to depict Christ as vulnerable and at the highest peak of humiliation and suffering possible to therefore evoke a sense of pity (pieta), and humility as possible.
california boy Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 You can Google all sorts of images that are now standards in art history textbooks that were obviously meant for viewing with a less refined eye. Look up "Venus of Urbino," by Titian, "The Naked Maja," by Goya, and "Olympia," by Manet for just three examples.I have to say, California Boy, that your chosen avitar is of Vitruvian Man, drawn by Leonardo da Vinci and is very appropriate for this topic. It depicts the real intent of the nude in art as defined by the ancient Greeks and phrased by Protagoras: that man is the measure of all things.Well a couple of things. "The Naked Maja," by Goya, and "Olympia," by Manet are their own interpretation of Venus of Urbino," by Titian. So it is debatable that their intent was to paint pornography though you seem to view it as their motivation. Were some paintings sensual? Yes. Does that make them pornographic? Obviously to some it does to others it doesn't. So you have an opinion. I think you will agree that not everyone agrees with your inturpetation. As far as your inturpetation of the meaning of Vitruvian Man, that too is your opinion. Michaelangelo wrote exactly what the drawing represented in the two paragraphs that surround the drawing. In his own words, it was a drawing on the relational porpotions of the human figure. No other intent is mentioned in HIS writings. It is not something you have to inturpet or make projections about. Vitruvian Man is a study in the porportions of the human body. Period. I chose Vitruvian Man as my avatar for very personal reasons, non of which is based on the beliefs of Protagoras on a drawing he never saw by an artist who never related a connection of his drawing to Protagoras. If you know anything about me, the reasons for my choice are quite obvious.
Silhouette Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 (edited) I personally would not have nude art in my home, and probably would not take people to places where I knew that nude art would be present, be it "classical" or not.When Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden, God fashioned coverings for them to clothe their nakedness. This tells me that we are not supposed to flaunt our nudity, nor admire it when other people do, whether in "art" or otherwise.Also, the garments that endowed Church members wear ought to serve as a reminder that we should be always be modest in our appearance and actions.If Heavenly Father expects modesty in us, it stands to reason that we should seek to display and admire only art that echoes this. Edited November 19, 2014 by Silhouette
bcuzbcuz Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 What a ridiculous topic. If you have a television or the internet in your home, you have nudity on open display. Hundreds of minutes of commercials every day do their upmost to titillize and tantilize the imaginations of prospective buyers for products ranging from bubble-gum to tires.Every commercial for soap or schampoo, whether you see it on tv or in a printed ad, or if you're zipping through pages on the internet will show as much of the human skin as possible without a direct focus on nipples or genitals. To pretend that you don't see it is as effective as denying you have genitals yourself.I, too, had a mother who clipped out any prospectively offending genitalia from magazines ranging from Life Magazine, to Reader's Digest (who, by the way have full-time staff members employed for the specific purpose of removing anything that can be possibily construed as being offenive). Because of a cultural oversight (superior race, etc.) my mother never bothered to censure National Geographics when they had articles showing naked native peoples from a variety of continents.Does it seem rational to avert your own eyes from the mirror image of yourself after taking a shower? Nakedness is not pronography.What is pornography?; I'll know it when I see it.
Recommended Posts