A Christian Perspective on Nudity in Art

An article by some guy about what he considers is a Christian
Perspective on Nudity in Art.

http://www.accsedu.org/files/ARCHIVE%20Classis/2004%20CLASSIS/Jan04final.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/3wxcld



John is a Christian who enjoys the arts and finds them edifying. He is
particularly fond of the art of
painting. Desiring to expand his art history knowledge, he visits the
best, closest art museum he can
find. Going from gallery to gallery, John begins to become discouraged
and more than a little embarrassed
because of all the nudity shown in the paintings. He finds himself
wondering if he should leave the
museum in a state of disillusioned protest. As a Christian, John
understands the need to shun pornography; but
what he is seeing is not Hollywood at its X-rated worst, it is Western
Civilization. These are the paintings that
make up the canon of art. What is he — what are Christians — to do
with nudity as it is often shown in art?
To answer the overriding question, one must first understand the
difference between nudity and pornography.
Nudity is nothing more than a human figure without clothing.

There is no overt intention of sexual arousal. When nudity is used in
art, it is often (but not always) with the
goal of eliciting an admiration on the part of the viewer for the
handy-work of his Creator. The Greeks believed
that man was the measure of all things; as such they sought to find
the perfect human form and show it in their art.

The resulting nudes are not pornographic; rather, they are the
outworking of the Greek ideal. As Christians, we rightly reject their
philosophy, but we should not make the mistake of mislabeling their
art. There has been much written on the beauty of the human body and
it does not need be rehearsed here. It is clear that we are, indeed,
fearfully and wonderfully made. When an artist shows nudity with this
in mind, he is showing it to the praise and glory of the Creator.
Pornography, on the other hand, has sexual arousal as its sole
intention. It seeks to debase and lower both its subject, the person
being looked at, and its  object, the person doing the looking, to the
level of mere animals. It is meant to feed our lusts, with the full
understanding that they can never be sated. Sexual lust — like all
other lusts — operates according to the Law of Diminishing Returns;
the more a person feeds his lust, the harder it is to get even
temporary satisfaction. This forces him to go back for increasingly
more and more stimulation until it is almost impossible to derive any
pleasure from his vice, no matter how much he indulges. It would be
irresponsible to say that no part of Western Art leans to the
pornographic side of things; for some of it does (much of Klimt,
Schiele, some Courbet, etc.); however, the difference is usually
reasonably obvious with sober thought (if it’s not, then the artist
has not done his job!).

There is also art that is quite charged with erotic content that
doesn’t show so much as an exposed
ankle. These paintings rely on context and subtlety to convey the true
meaning of the work. For example,

----

Article is really too long to post here. Please go to the article
yourself to read further.

http://www.accsedu.org/files/ARCHIVE%20Classis/2004%20CLASSIS/Jan04final.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/3wxcld