Mormons And Nude Art

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

Simple answer pornography like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Long answer. We get our ideas about pornography not from the ancient Greeks or Romans but from the much later Victorians. Right down to the reason for table clothes wasn't to protect the table, but because the cloth was meant to cover the phallic symbol of the table legs.

 

I wear clothes essentially for two reasons. One is for warmth, and the other is so not to scare the public.

 

As far as art is concerned. I have no pictures, paintings, or statuary of nudes in my home. Besides I'm more of a Monet fan myself.

[Garden Girl]

 

As far as art is concerned. I have no pictures, paintings, or statuary of nudes in my home. Besides I'm more of a Monet fan myself.

 

Me too, TSS...

and Winslow Homer... and Thomas Moran (Landscape)... E. John Robinson (seascapes)... and Doug Lindstrand (wildlife)... Jan Kunz (watercolor)... Jerome Tiger, John Nieto, Clyde Aspevig (Western/Southwest)

 

GG

[cdowis]

del

Edited November 19, 2014 by cdowis

[pogi]

He was upset when they changed the rules.

 

No doubt!  I bet male enrollement dropped signifcantly - somehow lost their flare for art or something.

[thesometimesaint]

As my mom taught us. A man is young as long as he looks. It is touching that will age him really quickly, especially if his wife finds out.

[cursor]

For whatever reason, [virtually all forms of] human nudity is viewed by so many as "pornographic."

 

What total nonsense.

 

What is "pornography" ... really? According to Mirriam-Webster it is:

Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.
 

When I watch my wife turn off the shower, then exit the same, while drying herself off with her towel (a daily occurrence) ... is that pornography?
 

When I view my 10 year old daughter exit from a bathtub, and offer her a towel ... is that pornography?

 

When I help my 5 year old grandson with a towel to dry off his wet self ... is that pornography?

 

When I, or my wife, exit our hot tub (in our very natural state) ... is that pornography?

 

Every single pic that own of my cats ... are of them naked.

Every single pic that I have of my chickens ... is of them NAKED

 

When my son was born in 1980, who cared if he had clothes on or not?

When my daughter was born in 1975, who cared if she had clothes on or not?

 

What total, absolute nonsense.

 

I own multiple pieces of [very expensive, and very naked] art that I proudly display in my front room (hey ... I ain't ashamed at all). Might you be?

 

One of my serious mentors had to petition an internet  publication source because they professed that his graphic images were "pornographic."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAgQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2F57kzone.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F03%2Fclarence-bass-at-75-and-65-years-of-age.html&ei=zgZtVKCvO5HqoATykIGQCQ&psig=AFQjCNHTV7gsghhyAE_gPyl4mf8hLYvItg&ust=1416517711080784

[Scott Lloyd]

For whatever reason, [virtually all forms of] human nudity is viewed by so many as "pornographic."

 

What total nonsense.

 

What is "pornography" ... really? According to Mirriam-Webster it is:

Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

 

When I watch my wife turn off the shower, then exit the same, while drying herself off with her towel (a daily occurrence) ... is that pornography?

 

When I view my 10 year old daughter exit from a bathtub, and offer her a towel ... is that pornography?

 

When I help my 5 year old grandson with a towel to dry off his wet self ... is that pornography?

 

When I, or my wife, exit our hot tub (in our very natural state) ... is that pornography?

 

Every single pic that own of my cats ... are of them naked.

Every single pic that I have of my chickens ... is of them NAKED

 

When my son was born in 1980, who cared if he had clothes on or not?

When my daughter was born in 1975, who cared if she had clothes on or not?

 

What total, absolute nonsense.

 

I own multiple pieces of [very expensive, and very naked] art that I proudly display in my front room (hey ... I ain't ashamed at all). Might you be?

 

One of my serious mentors had to petition an internet  publication source because they professed that his graphic images were "pornographic."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAgQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2F57kzone.blogspot.com%2F2013%2F03%2Fclarence-bass-at-75-and-65-years-of-age.html&ei=zgZtVKCvO5HqoATykIGQCQ&psig=AFQjCNHTV7gsghhyAE_gPyl4mf8hLYvItg&ust=1416517711080784

TMI

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

 

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.  

 

I'm a little confused, are you asking for art that was explicitly erotic that would be considered art now? There are plenty of images that are pretty explicit that today, are considered art. Think Hindu temple sculptures, especially at Khajurahu. There are Japanese woodblock paintings that proportedly had both potential erotic and superstitious use. Mihaly Zichy's ink drawing (less ancient). Gustav Klimt was quoted as saying "all art is erotic." Picasso has some sketchy cubist sketches (and, no, I'm not talking basic nudes). Even Rembrandt did some erotic art in his day. Heck, roccoco art will at least have sexual inuendo....And so on. There's even an erotic art museum in miami. And this is just what google could find. The reason it's not found in most text books is probably because, though holding artistic value/quality....it's still also probably more controversial and bordering uncomfortable (plus there's still a heavy emphasis on western/european art v. everywhere else). It's kinda like how you can receive a psychology degree without ever having to discuss the vast majority of sexual concerns beyond the very very basics (sexual orientation + basic sexual development). We're prudish and we present things in educational tools often mirrors that.

 

It doesn't mean that there wasn't pornographic images that are now considered art (that weren't hanging in brothels). Some of these were considered controversial then and part of art history now. Some were normative or even divine representations that, if they weren't art, would be considered pornographic. But the line between art and erotica was/is definitely blurred either way.

 

Pornography + time doesn't always equal art. My problem with that idea is that we have differing sexual mores, especially from more removed and ancient societies. It assumes the meaning of pornography is continuous. It's not. But to assume that eroticism and art were more separated is also not really true either. Artists blatantly evoked sexual imagery, myths, and stories into their work. Many of them could easily be arousing. Most basic art nudes just aren't that. 

 

 

With luv,

Bd     

[california boy]

I'm a little confused, are you asking for art that was explicitly erotic that would be considered art now? There are plenty of images that are pretty explicit that today, are considered art. Think Hindu temple sculptures, especially at Khajurahu. There are Japanese woodblock paintings that proportedly had both potential erotic and superstitious use. Mihaly Zichy's ink drawing (less ancient). Gustav Klimt was quoted as saying "all art is erotic." Picasso has some sketchy cubist sketches (and, no, I'm not talking basic nudes). Even Rembrandt did some erotic art in his day. Heck, roccoco art will at least have sexual inuendo....And so on. There's even an erotic art museum in miami. And this is just what google could find. The reason it's not found in most text books is probably because, though holding artistic value/quality....it's still also probably more controversial and bordering uncomfortable (plus there's still a heavy emphasis on western/european art v. everywhere else). It's kinda like how you can receive a psychology degree without ever having to discuss the vast majority of sexual concerns beyond the very very basics (sexual orientation + basic sexual development). We're prudish and we present things in educational tools often mirrors that.

 

It doesn't mean that there wasn't pornographic images that are now considered art (that weren't hanging in brothels). Some of these were considered controversial then and part of art history now. Some were normative or even divine representations that, if they weren't art, would be considered pornographic. But the line between art and erotica was/is definitely blurred either way.

 

Pornography + time doesn't always equal art. My problem with that idea is that we have differing sexual mores, especially from more removed and ancient societies. It assumes the meaning of pornography is continuous. It's not. But to assume that eroticism and art were more separated is also not really true either. Artists blatantly evoked sexual imagery, myths, and stories into their work. Many of them could easily be arousing. Most basic art nudes just aren't that. 

 

 

With luv,

Bd     

I am not saying that at all.  You have missed my point completely.  I acknowledge that there was and is art that is erotic and even sensual that are considered to be great works of art.  Many of these types of paintings hang in the great museums of the world and are considered fine works of art.  Some even considered them controversial at the time they were painted.  

 

But there was also pornographic images that were done for sex books, brothels and other lude venues that were done strictly for sexual arousement.  Rarely have those types of drawings risen to the point of being considered great works of art.  They are valued for their historical value, but rarely for their artistic merit.  The art you mentioned hanging in Miami for example is probably a collection of such artwork that was done throughout the ages and are more curiosities than great works of art.  Few of these types of paintings hang in the great museums of the world. 

[BlueDreams]

I am not saying that at all.  You have missed my point completely.  I acknowledge that there was and is art that is erotic and even sensual that are considered to be great works of art.  Many of these types of paintings hang in the great museums of the world and are considered fine works of art.  Some even considered them controversial at the time they were painted.  

 

But there was also pornographic images that were done for sex books, brothels and other lude venues that were done strictly for sexual arousement.  Rarely have those types of drawings risen to the point of being considered great works of art.  They are valued for their historical value, but rarely for their artistic merit.  The art you mentioned hanging in Miami for example is probably a collection of such artwork that was done throughout the ages and are more curiosities than great works of art.  Few of these types of paintings hang in the great museums of the world. 

 

No, I'm talking about works that explicitly depict sexual acts or suggest such strongly. The museum i mentioned has carried work from rembrandt, Dali and picasso. There isn't much difference in quality between them and the great works except subject material. And there isn't much difference between what we, today, would be considered pornographic except their artistic value. Similar techniques, similar stylistic flares, same materials, same artists that are definitely considered credible (at least they are today). Many of the European ones, especially, sold or were commissioned specifically because they wanted erotic images. And they were commissioning these from artists of their day that we now consider great. Titian's more subtle painting, mentioned above, was sold for "private collections" including one that was commissioned and meant to be kept secret because of his fear of Vatican repercussions of carrying such morally unchaste sort of works.  

 

 But I probably am not getting you on this, because I don't feel those lines are nearly definitive one way or the other. And maybe that's where we're crossing wires. It's not that ALL great works of art that entailed nudity were their image of porn or all that erotic period in their day. But at the same time it's not that ALL great works of art then were never porn or at least considered erotically edgy and controversial in their time either. Or that the images represented in amazing art wouldn't be considered porn today if the medium and age of the works were more up to date. I'm not getting the distinctions that you're making on the latter ends, because great artists were commissioned and created erotic art for their clientele at times. Some of them, i personally think, do have artistic value in their subject matter as well, because they explore the edges of human experiences as well as the parameters of acceptability and experience in their social contexts. I do agree that many of these didn't make it up to stand next to the mona lisa in masterpieces, but it's not because they were stylistically reduced. Their subject matter and our current society don't mesh well together. So Rembrandt's etching of Christ is beautiful work....but Rembrandt's etching of a bed scene, notsomuch... even though stylistically there is no difference. And in their day they were not all yellow-taped to the brothels and seedy books. Khajaraho literally is covered in extremely "lewd" and graphic reliefs and sculptures. It's also a beautiful religious edifice of both artistic and historical value. I just don't think we can extricate terms of erotica, art, and historical works as neatly as it feels you're inferring.

Edited November 20, 2014 by BlueDreams