Skip to comments.
The naked truth about art
Herald Today ^
| Thursday, February 23, 2006
| Joan Altabe
Posted on 02/28/2006 11:38:34 AM PST by klossg
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
I agree with Joan Altabe, not because she calls for this out of "advancement" but because the human body in most art can be naked and beautiful. (See the Theology of the Body)
Pornography is a different story all together!!!!
1
posted on
02/28/2006 11:38:38 AM PST
by
klossg
To: InterestedQuestioner; annalex; Notwithstanding; Romulus; A.A. Cunningham; Mrs. Don-o; ...
Theology of the Body Ping!
If anyone wants on or off theTheology of the Body Ping List, notify me here or by freepmail.
2
posted on
02/28/2006 11:39:16 AM PST
by
klossg
(GK - God is good!)
To: Dashing Dasher; Millee; PaulaB; Xenalyte; pissant; MikeinIraq; Bacon Man; Hap
The title alone can generate some interesting comments ping.
3
posted on
02/28/2006 11:41:30 AM PST
by
Allegra
(wear our the cats?)
To: Allegra
I prefer Art clothed, thank you!!
4
posted on
02/28/2006 11:44:22 AM PST
by
Millee
(Don't make me get out my voodoo doll out!)
To: klossg
Yes, the nude body can be artfully represented, but there's a place for it . I never censored my children much, and I am an artist. But I would not want my elementary school children exposed to nude art while perusing the children's book section at the library.
5
posted on
02/28/2006 11:45:08 AM PST
by
peacebaby
(I'm Louise)
To: klossg
Aside from the ill-informed knock on the Middle Ages, I agree with the article as well. It is a completely non-Catholic tradition, largely Puritan, that is shy about the nude body.
The famous Michelangelo's Crucifixion has Christ completely naked, and that nakedness has a profound and truthful impact.
It is true that nudity can distract from the message, particularly in religious art. This is why it is uncommon in the Middle Ages, when all art was religious art. But not unheard of. Medieval England for example had a tradition of painted churches, -- most vandalized during the Reformation, -- and the paintings often depicted Our Lady bare-breasted, for the same reason Delacroix had Madame Liberty bare-breasted, to emphasize motherhood.
6
posted on
02/28/2006 11:55:18 AM PST
by
annalex
To: Millee
I just prefer that Art sing.
7
posted on
02/28/2006 11:56:39 AM PST
by
peacebaby
(I'm Louise)
To: peacebaby
I would not want my elementary school children exposed to nude art I think the library should respect your wishes, -- it is, after all, not a museum, -- but why, really, would you be concerned with such exposure?
In my view, it is far better to inform the prepubescent child of the look of the adult body of both sexes, if only to remove the sense of mystery when puberty hits.
8
posted on
02/28/2006 12:00:51 PM PST
by
annalex
To: annalex
I have no problem with a prepubescent child seeing nude art. I do hae a problem with a pubescent child being exposed to it.
Perhaps I should reread the article to get the age of "child" clear.
9
posted on
02/28/2006 12:04:38 PM PST
by
peacebaby
(I'm Louise)
To: annalex
Aside from the ill-informed knock on the Middle Ages, I agree with the article as well.
The middle ages is such an easy target today.
largely Puritan, that is shy about the nude body.
I remember reading The Scarlet Letter in school and wondering why her little girl was made to suffer so much, though my Catholic heart knew adultery was wrong. I am so glad our Catholic Church is helping us see more clearly that the naked body is made in the image of God.
10
posted on
02/28/2006 12:04:46 PM PST
by
klossg
(GK - God is good!)
To: peacebaby; Millee
My kids probably wouldn't like seeing
naked either. Even if there was a moral behind it such as "Please be sure to zip up after using the bathroom."
One of the most calming things I see once in a great while is a woman discreetly breastfeeding her baby. I see that and I know that regardless of the swirling insanity, everything is alright and love will eventually bring us to the truth. I would hope that this kind of nudity will become more common so that we Americans remember that the human body is glorious and pure and not just either erotic or ugly. (Presently it seems that the only two categories for naked bodies are "erotic" and "ugly/hidden").
11
posted on
02/28/2006 12:14:36 PM PST
by
klossg
(GK - God is good!)
To: klossg
You are right.
How are we going to keep an adolescent boy from seeing the nude body for anything else but erotica?
I also do not believe there is nudity in the art at my Methodist church.
12
posted on
02/28/2006 12:19:16 PM PST
by
peacebaby
(I'm Louise)
To: peacebaby
How are we going to keep an adolescent boy from seeing the nude body for anything else but erotica? I've been that boy.
Of all things, art is the best thing to introduce erotica in a healthy way. Would you rather he looks at porn or at live nudity? In art, he sees a female body as object of veneration rather than exploitation. Which is the only way to deal with the prurient impulse. Christopher West tells that like any other living male, he cannot avoid seeing live female beauty in an erotic way. But he can say this prayer: "Lord thank you for creating this beautiful girl in Your image". Now, this prayer is in every true art. Perhaps if that boy looks at renaisasance nudes more, he will channel his sexuality constructively.
13
posted on
02/28/2006 12:28:19 PM PST
by
annalex
To: annalex
I understand your point! It makes sense to me. Thank you.
14
posted on
02/28/2006 12:31:46 PM PST
by
peacebaby
(I'm Louise)
To: klossg
Just the fact that we are discussing nudity in art shows that the nudity distracts from the message of the art unless sex is the message.
I may be showing my age again, but I remember when porn was not as common in our society as it is today. And back then every boy was a lover of art and diligently searched out the art books in the library for lusty perusal.
BTW Rubens messed me up!
15
posted on
02/28/2006 12:32:49 PM PST
by
Between the Lines
(Be careful how you live your life, it may be the only gospel anyone reads.)
To: Between the Lines
Just the fact that we are discussing nudity in art shows that the nudity distracts from the message of the art unless sex is the message.
Yes we are discussing nudity but heck God created us without clothes - in his image. It seems strange to me at times, especially when our Catholicism mixes so well with the naked body.
I like Rubens too. He throws it out there doesn't he? Paints them as if they do not know they are naked ... but they are completely naked!
One of the greatest teachings from John Paul II's Theology of the Body is that the body specifically in its male and female forms is Trinitarian in nature. From the Athanasian Creed: "The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." God is a communion of persons, facing each other in love. Same with man and woman ... created in the image of God, capable of bringing life and love into reality.
From Christopher West's talk on John Paul II's Theology of the Body: "The sexual embrace is the foundation stone of human life itself. The family and, in turn, culture itself springs from this embrace. In short, as sex goes, so go marriage and the family. As marriage and the family go, so goes civilization."
16
posted on
02/28/2006 1:12:32 PM PST
by
klossg
(GK - God is good!)
To: klossg
As if children haven't seen breasts since birth
*They've also seen a penis, testicles, urine, feces, vomit, snot ect but that doesn't necessarily mean they ought be objects of "art." There is hardly a place now-a-days that isn't sexualized. I don't know what the "art" in question is but there are, no doubt, many texts in that library with photos/pictures/paintings of breasts etc but why the desire to hang it on a wall? And and to call this "censorship" is another thing kids know about - BS
I'll bet ya a prolife organization couldn't put up art of an unborn child in the womb in that same library
To: klossg
Where are the photos of this "art?" If it was ok to be displayed next to the children's section, I would think it would be ok to post them here.
Or, are we being subjected to censorship by the newspaper?
To: klossg
****Chalk drawings, which included bared breasts, were taken from view at the library because they were said to be too near the children's section.****
It would depend on how the pictures are presented. After all, there is quite a difference between a Reniasance beauty with a bouquet of flowers and a Heyromonius Bosch painting showing one person sticking flowers where the sun doesn't shine.
And quite a difference between an etching by Rembrandt and one by Mario Tauzin.
19
posted on
02/28/2006 7:40:37 PM PST
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(Islam, the religion of the criminally insane.)
To: klossg; Ruy Dias de Bivar; peacebaby; Between the Lines; bornacatholic
By craving the security of the medieval tradition and ignoring that of the Renaissance, we keep alive a belief system best illustrated in a 1473 painting. "The Martydom of Saint Agatha" pictures men mutilating the breasts of a female in the belief that the female is a sexual temptation and must be crushed.LOL! She's been channeling Freud a little too much. St. Agatha was tortured for being a Christian, and one of her punishments was having her breasts cut off. If she had did a little investigation, she would have learned about that easily.
20
posted on
02/28/2006 8:13:50 PM PST
by
Pyro7480
(Sancte Joseph, terror daemonum, ora pro nobis!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson