Re: A Christian Perspective on Nudity in Art

On Sep 18, 4:56 pm, Anna <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/Jan04fi...
>
> 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/Jan04fi...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3wxcld

i would say this guy has a problem with lust.....talented artist do
not need shools and art museums to portray their craft....it is called
talent and ability....why go to the museums to check out what some one
else did....Christians i would think would resist the nudity in art
and not try to make nudity something that it is not....jz