(e)mergent Voyageurs

1 - Great topic, Jamie.

I recently started a fledgling artist's group here at Riverwood called "Render". (www.riverwood.cc/render) Even before the first gathering this issue came up since I was promoting this as a place to display your work. One of the artists said it wouldn't all be appropriate since most of her current stuff was nudes done in her classes at the WAG. Other artists here have since approached me with the same story.

I have my opinion but the challenge of doing this as part of our church (and I highly value that integration) is that there are more opinions than just mine to consider. And those opinions are important and no doubt range across the spectrum.

While we'll certainly broach the subject for discussion at one of our gatherings... at this point I simply don't know if we'll get to the place of actually displaying any work with nudity in it. Though ironically the figures that I've been painting in our gatherings don't have clothes but are so abstract I don't see them as "nude".

Greg (Comment this)

2 - I think that this is a good discussion. Being an aspiring artist and a "lapsed" catholic,I find myself intriuged and guilty all at the same time. When we look at little kids running around naked we think it is cute and feel no shame on their behalf. When does it become obscene or unacceptable ? When you are learning to draw the human figure you need to know anatomy, musculature in order to properly render the figure, then clothing is added after. How can we achieve this except by practicing on nudes. I believe that so much of the hang ups in the secular and religious communities comes from our culture. I think we should teach our children to be comfortable in their own skins and promote a positive body image while at the same time instilling enough self confidence and awareness that they do not feel they have to look a certain way to be loved or attractive. Its what is inside that counts.
Outside of North America (canada/us) and you will see countless examples of acceptable nudity. If we make it a forbidden fruit, we make it more tempting. (Comment this)

3 - I have an admitedly liberal view of art and nudity. As far as the philosophy of art goes, I read quite a bit of Arthur Danto. As a Christian, nudity doesn't bother me, what bothers me about nakedness would be its objectivization, sex as object. When the nude and the erotic become commodities of artificial expectation - like the digitalized pictures of women in all kinds of magazines - I have a huge problem. Here beauty is cast as unreal 'perfection'. Where the nude and the erotic are concerned there has to be maturity, discernment, but genuine appreciation. Of course there is a sense of sin to be considered, but sin is not avoided by avoiding the nude or erotic. In the end my view is highly contextual: who is viewing the art? under what settings? at what age? in what community? what is the purpose? and so on. To speak about nude art in the abstract may be quite hard, because it's not the abstract that typically concerns Chrstians, but the ways and means of sin entering the picture, so to speak. (Comment this)

4 - Greg,

An interesting challenge. I believe in integration too, though I wonder what that means. Is it the physical integration of location? Or a relational affirmation and networking? Tough questions. My heart would be to find a safe "third place" that the art, including the nudes, could be displayed without denying the integrative Christian dynamics. Easier said than done. Keep me posted.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

5 - Karen,

You bring up two very good points. The first is that the discipline of art requires study and practice. Michelangelo was able to study corpses for the study of anatomy. It is likely he was able to dissect some of the corpses (otherwise nude models would have sufficed, whereas tampering with corpses would have been criminal in his time). Thankfully we have the medical world to make much of the information available to us. Still, the nude model does seem to be an essential part of learning the craft.

The other aspect you mentioned is that of culture/context. Where in one culture something would be inappropriate, in another in might not. The greatest challenge I see in this regard is that we are living in a global village, where are contexts are overlapping at increasing rates.

Thanks so much for sharing. I agree with you perspective wholeheartedly.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

6 - Hey Ken,

Excellent points all! The objectification of the body/sexuality is all too common and destructive in our culture, whether it be through pornography or fashion or general media.

You also raise an interesting distinction that I would love to hear more people wrestle with: nude vs. erotic. Is all nude essentially erotic? What makes a nude erotic or not erotic? In my view, something could be clearly erotic with no nudity, while another thing could reflect full nudity and not be erotic at all.

Another question with this would how much the observer is responsible for their interpretation of the work? In the same way, the intent of the artist? Care to weigh in? Again, great thoughts.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

7 - Good question. I was talking with my girlfriend about music videos and the erotic, that's why I through that in. To be honest I'd have to think that one over! I'm not sure there's a line between the two (nudity/erotic), but rather that these things are culturally constructed. Breasts are not erotic for Paupa New Guineans (according to my former sociology professor), but rather a women's thighs. Tennis, for them, is pornographic. I think an even more interesting question is whether or not the erotic as art can be redeemed. I tend to think, again, contextually speaking, that there is a place for art as eros. What is Song of Solomon if not this? After all, it is one of the defining aspects of humanity, almost always discussed in mystical/spiritual terms; how can we fail to address artistically something of this fundamental magnitude? At the same time it is a double-edged sword, not unlike how St. Peter speaks of the tongue. I tend do not to think that an artist/author's intent is definitive, the context of the audience is of equal standing. But I'm not sure how an artist keeps this in mind, for surely not all contexts need to be considered. And we typically think of the artist as THE free person, who obeys their artistic impulse (a dodgey conception in my view). I certain don't have any rounded-out thoughts, but I can usually tell what doesn't sit well with me, and art restricted to present pieties doesn't strike as the most powerful, truly inspired and potentially life-transforming kind. That was more mercurial than I intended! (Comment this)

8 - I certainly have no issue with nudity in art, as long as it meets the well stated criteria above regarding non objectivising the subject (or the viewer) as well as some amount of prudence when considering the audience. I have intentionally introduced our young daughter to art with nudity (mainly renaissance art) in order to help her develop a healthy attitude about art and craft and the beauty of the human form.

However, let's remember that pieces of cloth were painted over "offensive" parts of anatomy on figures in Michelangelo's Last Judgement on the altar wall in the Sistene Chapel.

That to say, this isn't a modern phenomenon-- this difference of opinion over nudity in art- even the art of the masters. (Comment this)

9 - More about context- M. sculpted this David the way he did as Statement. One statement was about his own artistic development. Another was his view that his city, Florence, should be prominent because of its commercial and artistic successes.

How are prominence, power and merit "spoken" of in a three dimensional male nude figure? I think this is a deeper and more needed reflection in our context than that we usually associate with M. about how he took a rejected block of marble and pulled this out of it. The latter is good, but the former is more necessary, imo.

Dana (Comment this)

10 - Ken,

As always, great thoughts. As far as the artists responsibility, I think they need to use wisdom and common sense, but also recognize that they cannot be responsible for everything done to their work by others. The Bible has been used to justify all manner of evil, but this does not mean we should toss it, right?

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

11 - Cindy,

Indeed, this is not a new issue within Western Christianity, though the influence of gnosticism is quite prevelant in most examples of this. I think you are wise to handle the issue as you do with your daughter.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

12 - Dana,

So very true. The sophistication of Michelangelo's vision is often lost on people who assumed he was simply carving a naked Biblical character. This does him a disservice, as does any shallow engagement of art. Sadly, this is the norm for most people. I wonder if this has contributed to the development of elitist attitude within today's art community?

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

13 - Good question. If it wasn't so late I'd read all the comments, maybe tomorrow. But here is my 2 cents.

I think it completely depends on context. I don't have trouble with casual nudity in art. But when art is created for the sake of displaying nudity then it is another matter. But then again I am very anti-utilitarian about art. Art should be created for the purpose of creating art, if that includes nudity then so be it.

Now it is very hard for an observer to point to art and judge how it was created (intent). In fact I would say it is practically impossible. But art celebrates aspects of life (celebrate can also be a celebration of exposing sin, sadness or other negative things so this gets tricky). So if art is celebrating the exploitation of others (pornography), then I would say it is not worthy art (not worthwhile). In fact that is the only line I would draw for nudity. (Comment this)

14 - Frank,

I think you are right that context is important, but I am not sure I would agree that it "completely depends of context". There are some things that are wrong, regardless of context. I also think there is a place to displaying nudity for its own sake, in that the human form is a magnificently beautiful thing to behold.

You are right that it is tough to judge intent in art, which is part of the challenge and the strength of beauty, truth, etc.- it resists being too overtly categorized and judged. Thanks!

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

15 - If it´s more than 150 years old, it´s art. If it is younger it is porn.

At least that is how I think we tend to argue in the church.

I think maybe the question should also include the changed goal of art - from describing reality and/or communicate beauty to crossing bounderies and provoking a respons.

 (Comment this)

16 - Pastor Astor,

I think you are somewhat right with this point of view about the age of art. Sadly, people accept such shallow perspectives. As for the goal of art, I think it has always been somewhat more involved than that. Thanks for weighing in.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

17 - Jamie, thanks for bringing this up, it's a issue worthy of a lot more reflection from Christians. For me, I'm frequently stunned how many Christians, especially vocal ones in the US seem to almost fear nudity in the Arts, but seem comfortable with quite extreme portayals of violence. There's even been articles advocating the exposure of fairly young children to extreme violence in order to "toughen" them up.

Nudity and beauty are goods we should cherish, consider and understand. They are part of the created order and being able to untangle them from the noetic effects of sin seems, to me at least, to be part of the proper function of theology. If we look at Michelangelo's David and see nothing but an offensive penis in need of covering up, then I think it speaks, loudly, to the paucity of our theological vision. (Comment this)

18 - Fernando,

I couldn't have said it better myself. I am in full agreement. Thanks!

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

19 - Good post and good discussion! Refreshing to see that someone had the courage and tact to bring it up and host a conversation in such a way. Someone mentioned gnosticism and how it effects our attitude toward the body. I think such distancing from our body runs pretty deep in our blood, and can't just be blamed on Gnosticism. No one mentioned modern science, it's metaphysical bent...AND it's close correlation with or relationship to gnosticism...when it comes to these questions of the body and "objectification". To what else do we owe "objectification" of the body besides modern science (and gnosticism)!? And to what else do we owe our culutrally shallow attitude toward art as well. Anwyay, my point is that I think the question of nudity has to be inscribed inside of the bigger question of profanity...fits in with violence too, and someone mentioned the tongue as well. I just feel like all this is most centrally related to issues of sacra-mentality as compared to a mentality of profanity. I mean, the sacraments are erotic...up to the seventh one. (Comment this)

20 - Hey Jason,

It is true that gnosticism alone cannot be held responsible for the problems in this regard. However, within Christianity, it is a significant influence. It could also be argued that it had a significant role in shaping the views of modern science.

While I agree with the concept, I would probably say that the sacraments are largely sensual, as opposed to erotic. However, I would be interested to hear you develop this one more. Thanks.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

21 - Oh Jamie,

I was pretty much just referring to the idea that our very relationship with God is "erotic"...the kingdom isn't fully here yet...it's at a distance from us presently. We're always reaching a bit closer, and falling a bit further away. Ultimately it's what we all "desire". I think erotic relationships between bodies are a reflection of and mirror to the relationship between God and us human folk. The two relationships shine light on each other.

As for the sacraments themselves, I hadn't thought through all of them or anything...the thought was simply that our lives with God constitute a conditions of the erotic. I think the sacraments, or any sacra-mentality, will be a question of giving form to that condition, or giving form to the life within that condition. Which I think is really what art is anyway, whether the artist realizes he or she is "religious" or not. Any artist or human has some image before them toward which they are trying to reach or grasp, to which they want to get or be closer. All of our "motions", which constitute our "life", are generally consumed with the persuit of one or other of these images. The motion stops at the seventh sacrament (mirrored in the sabbath on the seventh day, I think). The most peaceful thing I've ever seen was a dead body.

And to elaborate, too...I think the issue is ultimately no different from any other question of sin and selfishness. I mean, someone mentioned how our cultural conditions effect our attitude toward the body. It seems, although I'm not condoning porn, that the problem with David wasn't that he was checking Bathsheba out, but that when he DID see her, he thought to himself, "MINE"! And he did what he had to do to GET (closer) to "it". Or to bring "it" closer to or within the realm of what was "his". And he did whatever it took to "get it" (closer to him), at whatever the cost...by which he eventually lost his own child.

When I fall (away) in this respect, it is I think most centrally and ultimately related to this "mine" thought, where I myself replace God, or some "other" as the center of my own life. I guess I'm suggesting that all relationships have an eroticism to them...the question is how we decide, or who we let decide exacly the nature or measure of the DISTANCE between the two "objects" in question. Will God bring me what I want or do I, to some degree or measure, tust Him to bring me what He knows good and darn well better than I what is good for me? Will I "take the law into my own hands"?

God bless,

Jason (Comment this)

22 - Oh, and above I said, "It seems, although I'm not condoning porn, that the problem with David wasn't that he was checking Bathsheba out...". I mean, obviously she was married, and Jesus later said, "If you so much as look in a lustful way toward...". My basic point, though, is that this was not an issue of some taboo on the body that comes out of all sorts of funny and questionable histories, but something else...I mean, the story seems to indicate that their attitude toward the body was different. HOW did David see her in the first place? I'm assuming she wasn't out flaunting herself HOPING to go committ adultry with the king up on the hill who WOULD BE ABLE to see her. That's all lots of assuming...but my point is, the attitude toward the body seems to have been different, regardless.

AND, I think this different attitude toward the body reflects a different attitude toward the sacred...or maybe rather reflects a different image of what we hold sacred. I mean, even now in Africa, where the average dude "has a sense of some being greater than himself" without having to decide between a loyalty to science or religion, women are what we would think of as loose in what they expose in public, and when, while feeding their babies.

Does that help? Am I being more confusing? Am I without realizing it challening some basic moral principle that I'm not supposed to? Eeehh...

More blessings,

Jason (Comment this)

23 - Jason,

Interesting, with a fair mix of clarity and further confusion (wink). Thanks again for weighing in!

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

24 - Thanks again, Jamie, for a good blog and good hosting of a discussion...

Jason (Comment this)

25 - The bible speaks very blatantly against nudity. I'm surprised you'd put something up like this. It saddens me.

Nudity in art is disgusting. The naked form is not for show. (Comment this)

26 - Jezreel,

I am not surprised that we disagree on this. The Bibles references to nudity are not as blatant as you suggest. However, I doubt we will convince the other of our view. Alas.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

27 - Jezreel,

I too doubt that either of us will change the other's opinion. However, I must ask...you say the naked form is not for show...when ever IS any "show" at all appropriate? When we are "showing off", not necessarily our our naked body, what is being shown? Through the action in questin, is it impulsive and compulsive self-assertion, or the fruits of the spirit...that are appearing or being revealed? Reciprocally, if there is nudity in art, does it necessarily mean that it is a "show"?

And in the completely opposite direction...our usual attitude/assumption about art is that it is to mimic or imitate "real life", as a photograph imitates its subject(s)...in which case, of course, if we see nudity in art we come to view it as a proposition that we shop at the grocery store naked. What if art, however, is not "show", but is "revelation", like the last book of the Bible, through which what cannot be seen is being brought into availability for interaction with the 5 senses? In which case nudity in art might be tempting...depending on the audience...but it is not necessarily making a moral proposition, at least not about the ancient Roman practice of bathing in public.

AND, more importantly...if art is not "show", a formally nude artifice might have a lot of important stuff to say OTHER than the substance of a moral proposition...at least a moral proposition on the appropriateness of nudity in public. Important stuff we will almost certainly miss if art can be nothing to us besides a moral proposition.

Jason (Comment this)

28 - Wow what a great post and discussion. My only regret is that the conversion may be a but old. Anyway here is my 20cents worth:

a) to understand the context of the statements below, you will need to understand that (1) I am overcoming an addition to pornography (2) that I enjoy most forms of art and love doing any (not that I often get a chance) and (3) photography is more my thing now.

The above comments discussing "nude and the erotic" are very helpful. Nudity can in fact be very ugly. Most people don't have a "perfect" body. Basically most of us if you strip our clothes off are over weight, hairy, pimply and otherwise not very attractive. Therefore art that protray's nudity as nudity (as a lot of the old masters did) is very acceptable. However erotic, which as people above have pointed out is within the context of society and is framed by our outlook. As a guy I can find some lady highly erotic and attractive (aka lusty) but she has all her clothes on. Body language, clothes and eyes all play to make the erotic communication. This is often seen in perfume ads.

So in the public domain nudity not erotic should be the aim. In saying that I wouldn't go to a art show that had lots of nudes - I don't want to open any doors... But if I was in a show or museum and nude paintings - no problem.

I think in rejecting public erotica (I was playing pool the other day and had music channel playing I was amazed and the phonographic music youth videos!) we have rejected erotica completely. Thus we do not show a Godly celebration of erotica. When was the last time you heard a sermon on the joy of sex?!

However within the context of marriage then nudity and erotica should be celebrated. Now without going into to much detail.... I have been thinking about this lately because my delightful wife surprised me the other day by purchasing significant set of undergarments from a clothing sale. Now she has parts of her body she is not proud of, and parts I am glad she has. Now with my love of photography I would like to go on a "shoot" with her and her new garments. (What do you do with 3 under 6yrs old though?). We would be able to produce some stunning photos that I am sure she would be amazed at how good she looks. It would be great to hang these up in our bedroom (practical problem - who would print it, and due to our very small house our bedroom is reasonably public), as they would remind me to rejoice in the wife of my youth. Trying to personally work out a Godly view on art, nudity and erotica in context of our society is difficult....

 (Comment this)

29 - David,

Great thoughts. Thanks for your sharing your experiences and ideas with us.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

30 - wow, lots of comments, sorry to say I haven't read them. I will give my pov though. I personally have an admittedly liberal view on nudity in art. For me PERSONALLY, the line between porn and "fine art" is thin and has more to do with the vibe I get than anything concrete.

So...what I think is more important is that we never take a careless and thoughtless approach on either side. On the conservative side, they tend to want to keep it safe and therefore put up a big hedge around the law to make sure no one comes close to crossing it failing to teach anyone how to critically examine art. On the liberal side, we can tend toward an anything goes attitude where we are not critical in engaging art.

Each local community needs to wrestle with the issue holistically keeping context in mind and they need to equip one another to individually engage in the process of critical engagement. (Comment this)

31 - Makeesha,

Well said. I am not conservative in my view of this issue, but I am something of a diplomat, wanting to be sensitive about the use a freedom without removing the freedom altogether.

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

32 - This is a very interesting topic, and more so because this is something that I have been questioning myself for a while as a performer/artist. As a Christian at heart, there will be times when i know that I am required to do certain things that may compromise my belief. For example playing a lesbian or stripping in front of others because it is necessary for that particular scene or role.

I think when it comes down for nudity and art to me, it is more about what is the message you are conveying to others when you remove one's clothing. I hold to the fact that I believe one's body should only be meant for the husband or wife and that's it. However, what if the purpose of the nudity was to make a statement? It is quite obvious with the means of art, video and visual effects that strong messages can be carried across.

That said though, I still feel that nudity and art, becomes a matter of what an individuals principles are. The body is not evil, but it depends the intention of how you use your body... Would love to hear more thoughts on this :) Great post! (Comment this)

33 - Thanks for sharing, Anon!

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)

34 - Yes, the determination between art, erotic art, and pornography is very subjective. If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", then ugliness, vulgarity, obscenity and offensiveness is also in the eye of the beholder. I hate to see people exploit themselves in the name of fun or money, whether they are the artist, photographer, or model. It is an ugly side of humanity that I wish we could grow and mature out of. Lust oriented artwork is pathetic and demeaning to art itself.

Sincerely, J






 (Comment this)

35 - Thanks J. It is a fine line, though I don't think it is completely relative to the beholder. There are, in my opinion, some scenarios where something is unacceptable. However, it is not always so clear. Thanks again!

Peace,
Jamie (Comment this)