"Nudity (or near nudity) is justified under the name of art"... how to counter?

[Lostear]

Being a new Christian (saved oct 15, 2009) and an art student, I sometimes have difficulties with my teachers in the art department showing artworks with nudity in it. I have explained to them that I do not agree with it and based it on the general concept of temptations. FYI, I battled pornography addiction and is pretty much done with that but I still flee temptations of that kind as I know I am weak against it.

Anyway, I would like to ask for some scriptures supporting this reasoning (or any other scriptures condemning nudity in art), so that I may be better equipped to explain this to my teachers and my future potential clients. I have intent to develop my business, lost-ear-studio.com (site is incomplete), with Christian values. In fact, I'm currently volunteering to develops my mother-in-law ministry's site, pastorfriend.org (VERY incomplete), and thus it would not reflect well at all on them if I was doing these inappropriate arts.

Thank you for any input on this matter. god bless.

FYI, my first post here looking forward to learning more about Jesus here and to hash out and improve my understanding of Christ.


---Link removed per 20 post rule---

 

[Digger]

I don't think nudity or studying the human form in and of itself is evil. Yet such an activity could easily be a stumbling block for many as you correctly point out.

I know for myself I would avoid such an activity as it could be seen as an appearance of evil to others even though, like I said, I don't believe studying the human form is evil in and of itself.



Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

I would like to ask for some scriptures supporting this reasoning (or any other scriptures condemning nudity in art

I'm afraid you're out of luck because indecent exposure is a cultural issue rather than biblical. Clothing wasn't God's idea; it was man's.

†. Gen 3:6-7 . . When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

It's really interesting that Eve made no attempt to cover her bosoms; and in many primitive cultures that's still the case. She and Adam covered only their pelvic areas: which tells me that one of the results of eating the forbidden fruit was a guilt complex over sex and the human body.

Another result of eating the forbidden fruit was a natural sense of right and wrong.

†. Gen 3:22 . . Then Yhvh God said: The people have become as we are, knowing everything, both good and evil.

At that moment, man become his own God— a know-it-all God who felt he needed no instruction from the real God in matters of right and wrong. In other words: what it boils down to is that frontal nudity isn't a sin and has actually never been forbidden: people just think it's a sin; and it's very difficult to convince them otherwise because man's natural sense of right and wrong has a very powerful grip on his conscience.

†. Jer 13:23a . . Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?

Answer: No.

†. Jer 13:23b . .Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.

Now let's fast-forward.

†. Rev 3:18. . I counsel you to buy from me white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed

The passage above makes frontal nudity look shameful but that's not what it's saying. God made coats of skins for the first couple so they would stop avoiding Him because even with loin cloths they felt indecently exposed. In other words, the white garments are so people will be comfortable in God's presence instead of squirming and looking around for somewhere to hide. God isn't offended by nudity, I mean, after all, He created man butt-naked and never once demanded Adam and his wife put something on when He came calling. The white garments (which are no doubt highly symbolic) aren't for accommodating God feelings; but man's.

Note: one of the hardest things I had to learn as a Christian was to forgive myself. In other words: you are never in this life going to shake your guilt complex over sex and the human body so you've just got to get over it and get used to living with it— the meanwhile keep reminding yourself that you weren't saddled with that complex by God, no, it was imposed on you without your consent by two very stupid grandparents.

Cliff
/

 

[Lostear]

hmmm....
I don't have that good of a knowledge of the bible yet (trying to remedy that) but wasn't there something about two woman being killed because they had glimpsed the private of the singer of the song of Solomon or something like that? Again, I don't have that concrete of an knowledge of the bible and I'm basing this on a old memory so feel free to correct me.

I don't understand how Adam and Eve shame in nudity is a human thing? Wouldn't the apple from the tree of knowledge confer them with the knowledge of sin too? I guess I don't understand how Adam and Eve would suddenly have the Man's idea for clothing if the shame was not for the SIN of nudity or something related. I'm a bit confused by this part, sorry.

I also have the feeling that we should be careful about defining exactly what is the sexual sins while dismissing the 'cultural' aspect of it. God do not like sexual sins and there are so many kind of sexual sins. I do think that sometimes, the culture at the time may be used to provide some context of the meaning of the verses from the times. I would think that the bible would be more definite about this idea of sexual sins. Just my gut feeling though so feel free to ignore this. I may come back to this later on in the discussion though.

I do feel that nudity in all but most private (between husband and wife) form should be considered a sin of tempting others since i feels that the world is going down the road to sexual depravity (at least america is) to the point that simple nudity in any forms including art elicit wrongful sexual desires in today's culture.

Thank you for your responses

 

[farouk]

Lostear: I think we would agree as to what nudity is. You also mention near-nudity. I guess what exactly near-nudity is, in various contexts, would also be a matter of opinion.

Fact is, leaving the art world entirely, many, many people in health services have to serve patients, when, in certain circumstances, people have to undress, in part or in whole; it's the nature of the job. People need to be able to stay professional and detached. If it's still a problem, then Harry Truman's maxim would apply, I guess: 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.'

Also, I guess an art teacher would say, Do you mean the human form can't be represented at all? in some circumstances, life drawing is part of the nature of learning to draw, with the proviso, if the artist or the model is not comfortable, then they maybe had better not participate.

Also, with regard to what you call near nudity, it's often a matter of context. The people you meet in a law office might say that someone dressed for the beach was nearly nude, but they themselves might dress that way on the beach.

(Two cents'.)

 

[Lostear]

Lostear: I think we would agree as to what nudity is. You also mention near-nudity. I guess what exactly near-nudity is, in various contexts, would also be a matter of opinion.

Fact is, leaving the art world entirely, many, many people in health services have to serve patients, when, in certain circumstances, people have to undress, in part or in whole; it's the nature of the job. People need to be able to stay professional and detached. If it's still a problem, then Harry Truman's maxim would apply, I guess: 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.'

Also, I guess an art teacher would say, Do you mean the human form can't be represented at all? in some circumstances, life drawing is part of the nature of learning to draw, with the proviso, if the artist or the model is not comfortable, then they maybe had better not participate.

Also, with regard to what you call near nudity, it's often a matter of context. The people you meet in a law office might say that someone dressed for the beach was nearly nude, but they themselves might dress that way on the beach.

(Two cents'.)

I understand your comment on near nudity. I really just threw that in the title as it have the same effect on me as a nude pic anyway since the nature of my weakness is toward this kind of thing. Generally, I completely agree with you on outside of the art profession with regard to the health service. there is really no real way to avoid this until we get the medical tricorders of the Star Trek variant .

I do believe that we can still represent a human body WITHOUT the need for a completely nude body. Just put on some modest swimwear and then the artists can still see enough to understand the flow of the muscle and planes of the body for most of the cases. Why must we be able to see the nipple and cleavage to appreciate the curves of the torso? and usually even with a drawing of the torso itself, not much is truly needed.... Especially with the more and more stylized movement of human in arts lately, like cartoons and other works.

back to the near nudity, there is no real reason for the context on near nudity. A beach-goer can still enjoy the beach without needing to wear so skimpy of a swimwear. My wife uses a very modest one piece swimwear and you couldn't see much more than if she was wearing a regular modest dress. If the beach-goer specifically dressed to tan, they can just do that in private or just go to a tanning place. I do think that the beaches is getting pretty bad nowadays with how little is covered.


looking forward to your response

 

[for_his_glory]

I think there may be a fine line between nudity as it causing one to lust which is where the sin is, but to look upon the beauty that is created in the pure image of God as a work of art would be that of appreciation for what God created as something beautiful. It's like drinking, the sin is not in the drink, but what the drink causes the mouth to speak that is where the sin lays, but in the mouth. Lust of the eyes, lust of the drink.

 

[Lostear]

The main difficulties I have here is in the separation of the nudity and sin of temptations. Considering how so easy it is to tempts others even with 'godly' image of nude paintings... wouldn't that be a sin of Roman 14:13 to create or show any bits of nudity for any reason at all?

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

 

[ExtraMedium]

Interesting question. I posted a pretty similar question in the General Question forum and got a mixed response. As a photographer, I occasionally photograph bride-to-be's in lingerie as part of their boudoir session as a gift for their husband-to-be. Personally, I get no excitement of them being in those sort of clothing. They always have a friend there as a chaperone. I go in there with my camera, lights, do my job and leave. Done. I'm married. My wife supports me. I take the photo because they're given to the husband as a gift, just as Jesus supports marriage and their own intimacy. But the responses that I got were mostly conservative to the point that I shouldn't ever see another woman in that kind of clothing. I honestly think that is way overboard and conservative.

What it comes down to is you. If you find temptation from seeing a nude body, then don't do it. If seeing it gets your blood rushing and thinking impure thoughts, then perhaps it's too much.

The way I see it, God is perfect, and he created Man (and woman) in His own image. He gave us sexual organs and I don't see how it's shameful to see them. In Europe, seeing topless women in magazines, movies, and prime-time TV shows is commonplace, AND because they're not as uptight as American's about it, they have much less sexual crimes and perversion there.

But only you can determine if it's too much for your eyes. Don't fall prey to what other cookie-cutter Christians think. Pray to God about it, read your bible, and then make that determination yourself.

Good luck and God speed!

 

[Lostear]

Interesting question. I posted a pretty similar question in the General Question forum and got a mixed response. As a photographer, I occasionally photograph bride-to-be's in lingerie as part of their boudoir session as a gift for their husband-to-be. Personally, I get no excitement of them being in those sort of clothing. They always have a friend there as a chaperone. I go in there with my camera, lights, do my job and leave. Done. I'm married. My wife supports me. I take the photo because they're given to the husband as a gift, just as Jesus supports marriage and their own intimacy. But the responses that I got were mostly conservative to the point that I shouldn't ever see another woman in that kind of clothing. I honestly think that is way overboard and conservative.

What it comes down to is you. If you find temptation from seeing a nude body, then don't do it. If seeing it gets your blood rushing and thinking impure thoughts, then perhaps it's too much.

The way I see it, God is perfect, and he created Man (and woman) in His own image. He gave us sexual organs and I don't see how it's shameful to see them. In Europe, seeing topless women in magazines, movies, and prime-time TV shows is commonplace, AND because they're not as uptight as American's about it, they have much less sexual crimes and perversion there.

But only you can determine if it's too much for your eyes. Don't fall prey to what other cookie-cutter Christians think. Pray to God about it, read your bible, and then make that determination yourself.

Good luck and God speed!

Actually it was your thread that made me think of this question. To be honest, I don't necessarily agree with you but only because I strongly feels that Man deceives themselves very easily. You may be the exception and there is no way for me to truly knows. That is up to you and is not really my business to demand proof or anything like that. Nothing against you but you must understand that from where I am standing, you are the rare exception, and I applaud you for your professionalism. I am just afraid of many man claiming to be professional and yet still dwell upon the images that these man have seen.

(tried to find the verses that I THINK I remember seeing about dwelling upon sinful thoughts)

Because you are the rare exception, I do feels that you may want to be careful about promoting that kind of works as many other's simply do not have your determination to not be tempted.

 

[Mike]

But only you can determine if it's too much for your eyes. Don't fall prey to what other cookie-cutter Christians think. Pray to God about it, read your bible, and then make that determination yourself.

And don't promote for others something that has been an easy stumbling-block for believers since Eden. I'm telling you now, EM, don't do it. This is crossing the line. :gah

 

[ExtraMedium]

I absolutely agree with both of you regarding the promotion of this activity to others. I realize that seeing an unclad woman can be tantalizing which can lead to sin. I'm probably the exception because of my pre-saved life led me to a lot of unclad women. So I've become desensitized to it, unfortunately. My wife excites me, which is great, but the novelty of seeing unclothed women has unfortunately left me. I suppose that's good for this narrow line of work, but also good because I feel absolutely NO need for the affirmation, attention or affection for any other women outside my wife. The love that she has for me is so much greater than the body of any other women. It took me a lifetime of sin to understand this. Not sure if this is relevant to your question, but we all have a lifetime of experiences to draw upon who makes us who we are today

 

[farouk]

I understand your comment on near nudity. I really just threw that in the title as it have the same effect on me as a nude pic anyway since the nature of my weakness is toward this kind of thing. Generally, I completely agree with you on outside of the art profession with regard to the health service. there is really no real way to avoid this until we get the medical tricorders of the Star Trek variant .

I do believe that we can still represent a human body WITHOUT the need for a completely nude body. Just put on some modest swimwear and then the artists can still see enough to understand the flow of the muscle and planes of the body for most of the cases. Why must we be able to see the nipple and cleavage to appreciate the curves of the torso? and usually even with a drawing of the torso itself, not much is truly needed.... Especially with the more and more stylized movement of human in arts lately, like cartoons and other works.

back to the near nudity, there is no real reason for the context on near nudity. A beach-goer can still enjoy the beach without needing to wear so skimpy of a swimwear. My wife uses a very modest one piece swimwear and you couldn't see much more than if she was wearing a regular modest dress. If the beach-goer specifically dressed to tan, they can just do that in private or just go to a tanning place. I do think that the beaches is getting pretty bad nowadays with how little is covered.


looking forward to your response

Lostear:

A couple more cents':

In Canada a court laid down that women can go in public without a bikini top if they wish (NOT a brilliant idea, in my view).

My guess would be that, in Canada at least, it would be hard to find an art course which taught life drawing where the assumption was that the areola and lactiferous duct are inherently undrawable.

But the fact is that if one were determined to avoid all sunbathers, anyone with a low neckline, etc., you basically wouldn't go anyway or do anything.

Basically, the thing to do is to avert one's gaze, I suppose, if one is suddenly 'confronted' with someone's unexpected assets.

My suggestion would be, if you can't cope with it (and everyone has individual coping mechanisms), better not to do life drawing.

Anyway life drawing will go on.

 

[ExtraMedium]

Lostear:

A couple more cents':

In Canada a court laid down that women can go in public without a bikini top if they wish (NOT a brilliant idea, in my view).

That's another thing... at least other countries in Europe are a little more relaxed and not considering nudity such a horrible thing. I just don't get Americans with their sense that seeing skin is such a negative, sinful thing. Where does it say in the bible that just seeing an unclothed person is a sin?

It's just so conservative and backwards to me. Like anything else in life, if you try and hide anything it'll just make people more curious and anxious about it. Relax about it and it won't be such a big deal.

 

[farouk]

That's another thing... at least other countries in Europe are a little more relaxed and not considering nudity such a horrible thing. I just don't get Americans with their sense that seeing skin is such a negative, sinful thing. Where does it say in the bible that just seeing an unclothed person is a sin?

It's just so conservative and backwards to me. Like anything else in life, if you try and hide anything it'll just make people more curious and anxious about it. Relax about it and it won't be such a big deal.

EM:

Try Matthew 5.27 & 28.

Hospital workers, lifeguards, wedding photographers, etc., need to find a way to do their work, too, while avoiding difficulties.

 

[reba]

Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

 

[Pizzaguy]

.
I'm afraid you're out of luck because indecent exposure is a cultural issue rather than biblical. Clothing wasn't God's idea; it was man's.

It's really interesting that Eve made no attempt to cover her bosoms; and in many primitive cultures that's still the case. She and Adam covered only their pelvic areas: which tells me that one of the results of eating the forbidden fruit was a guilt complex over sex and the human body.

Another result of eating the forbidden fruit was a natural sense of right and wrong.

At that moment, man become his own God— a know-it-all God who felt he needed no instruction from the real God in matters of right and wrong. In other words: what it boils down to is that frontal nudity isn't a sin and has actually never been forbidden: people just think it's a sin; and it's very difficult to convince them otherwise because man's natural sense of right and wrong has a very powerful grip on his conscience.

......

The passage above makes frontal nudity look shameful but that's not what it's saying. God made coats of skins for the first couple so they would stop avoiding Him because even with loin cloths they felt indecently exposed. In other words, the white garments are so people will be comfortable in God's presence instead of squirming and looking around for somewhere to hide. God isn't offended by nudity, I mean, after all, He created man butt-naked and never once demanded Adam and his wife put something on when He came calling. The white garments (which are no doubt highly symbolic) aren't for accommodating God feelings; but man's.

Note: one of the hardest things I had to learn as a Christian was to forgive myself. In other words: you are never in this life going to shake your guilt complex over sex and the human body so you've just got to get over it and get used to living with it— the meanwhile keep reminding yourself that you weren't saddled with that complex by God, no, it was imposed on you without your consent by two very stupid grandparents.

Cliff
/

I edited out the scriptures mostly to emphasize your words, not because I don't revere scripture.

Your post is a VERY thoughtful, well stated, analysis of our problem with nudity.
I commend you, and am tempted (talking about temptation) to steal this as my own. You can be sure I will quote parts of it from time to time, but I promise to credit you!

 

[Pizzaguy]

The main difficulties I have here is in the separation of the nudity and sin of temptations. Considering how so easy it is to tempts others even with 'godly' image of nude paintings... wouldn't that be a sin of Roman 14:13 to create or show any bits of nudity for any reason at all?

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

Emphasis mine, of course.

Ok, know what tempts me?

Girls/Women/Ladies in short skirts (LEGS! - )
Girls/Women/Ladies in wearing tops that reveal their flat stomach (Flat Bellies! - )
Girls/Women/Ladies in jeans (Well rounded women! - )

... fact is, most of us, women included, wear clothing to look better (part of the reason anyway) and fact is, IT WORKS!

NUDITY doesn't cause lust - Don't ban nudity - ban provocative dress!

 

[farouk]

Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

r:

These are good verses to remember, yes.

There is a general aspect to the thread's subject.

And there is a more specific, circumstantial aspect to it.

Basic, common sense needs to be applied in combining the two, I think.

My watchwords would be respect and caution.

 

[Webers_Home]

.

Your post is a VERY thoughtful, well stated, analysis of our problem with nudity. I commend you

Well; I thought my comments might raise a few eyebrows, but I never really expected anybody would actually think they meant something.

am tempted (talking about temptation) to steal this as my own. You can be sure I will quote parts of it from time to time, but I promise to credit you!

I appreciate the thought; but you needn't be concerned about crediting me for anything. I'm on Christian Forum dot net for fun rather than fame.

Cliff
/