Nudity in Art | Boundless Line

Nudity in Art
by Ted Slater on 03/12/2009 at 1:11 PM

Comments on several blog posts tell me that this is a hot topic: When and how is it appropriate to include nudity and portrayals of sexual intercourse in various forms of art, specifically film?

In regards to viewing nudity, it's clear that there's a spectrum of appropriateness. On one hand, it may be appropriate for a man to view his wife's or baby's unclothed body; at certain times a male physician may be within his right to view a woman's unclothed body. On the other hand, it's never appropriate for a man to view a woman other than his wife with lustful desire in his heart, whether she is clothed or unclothed.

Perhaps the rightness or wrongness of viewing nude forms has to do with vocation: a husband's vocation to please his wife, for example, or a physician's vocation to care for his patients.

And perhaps the rightness or wrongness of viewing nude forms also has to do with the heart: viewing a woman lustfully is clearly wrong.

Perhaps Scripture can provide some clarity, some insights into this issue.

Job made a covenant with his eyes not to "gaze at a virgin." Habakkuk associates "gazing" at someone's unclothed body as shameful. There's something about "gazing" at someone you're not married to that Scripture considers wrong.

To directly challenge a comment on another blog post: Scripture does indicate that a woman's breasts are sexual for men, and not merely for men in "civilized cultures." Consider Proverbs 5:19 and Song of Solomon 7:6-12 and Ezekiel 23:3,21, for example. To further illustrate, let me ask our female readers a couple of questions: If a man not your husband touched your shoulder, that'd probably be all right, right? But if he touched you elsewhere, it would not be all right. If he looks you in the eye, that's probably all right, right? But if he gazes elsewhere, would you not feel uncomfortable? Of course, because you would feel sexually violated.

Nakedness is associated with disgrace and shame (Isaiah 47:3, Micah 1:11, Nahum 3:5, Revelation 3:18). When we see someone who is without clothing, we are not to admire their form, but to cover them (Isaiah 58:7, Ezekiel 18:7, Genesis 9:22-27).

God modeled this by clothing Adam and Eve. God did this because He deemed such a gift to be good; not giving such a gift would not be good; therefore it would be bad not to give such a gift; because this gift's purpose was to cover their unclothed bodies, it follows that it was bad for Adam and Eve to go around with unclothed bodies.

God again covers nakedness in Ezekiel 16:8. Jesus affirms clothing the unclothed in Matthew 25.

I need to make it clear that the human body is not shameful. It is glorious. But in most cases, uncovering it before others is condemned. Just as, perhaps, interacting inappropriately with the sacred Ark of the Covenant was condemned.

Scripture is clear that it is wrong to "lie sexually" with someone to whom you're not married (Leviticus 18:20). The marriage bed is to remain undefiled (Hebrews 13:4). Actors who portray sexual intercourse with someone to whom they're not married are rejecting both of these principles. By paying money to view these actors, we are facilitating and affirming their ungodly behavior.

I see plenty of instances in Scripture where viewing unclothed bodies is wrong. Does Scripture ever portray unclothed bodies as right? Hm. Well, maybe. Isaiah "walked naked and barefoot for three years as a sign ... against Egypt and Cush." The Lord Himself directly commanded Isaiah to do so in order to indicate the shame these peoples would experience.

Should passers-by have averted their gaze, like the men of Coventry who refused to look at the Lady Godiva as she rode horseback through their town, naked and humbled, sacrificing her honor for their sake? Yeah, probably.

It's also likely that Jesus was without clothing as he was hanging on the cross. His garments were divided among those who carried out the crucifixion. This nakedness may have contributed to the shame He experienced on the cross.

As with Isaiah, Jesus' humiliation was a display of God's holy judgment against sin. Like Lady Godiva, He sacrificed His honor for our sake. It had no entertainment value.

(Note, of course, that the nakedness of neither Isaiah nor Jesus was in any way sexual, but was heartbreakingly shameful and humiliating.)

So is it good for storytellers to use unclothed bodies in their art? Does the vocation of "artist" grant someone the same authority that husbands or physicians may have to view an unclothed woman? Does their vocation permit them to instruct unmarried couples to engage in sexual behavior? Even if so, when is it good for the rest of us to view the nakedness and sexual activity they present to us?

Sex | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. NeedACatchyName said the following at 1:28 PM on Mar 12:

Since you bring up art, that poses another interesting question: is there a place for nudity in fine art (such as Michaelangelo's "David"), or did the Victorians have the right idea in putting a plaster fig leaf over the statue's, ahem, "sensitive parts?"

2. Adam said the following at 1:50 PM on Mar 12:

There is one place in Scripture where nudity was used as a positive example. In Hebrews 12, Paul speaks of throwing off everything that hinders.

If you look into the culture, races were run in the nude because clothing was considered a hindrance to running the fastest.

Now obviously Paul's primary point was not to advocate nudity. But using nudity as a positive example may shed some light on the issue.

3. Brian said the following at 1:53 PM on Mar 12:

I do not believe that any man can see a beautiful, naked woman without at least being tempted to lust. And if there is even temptation, we are to flee. (1 Cor 6:18) Period.

Flee v. 1. "To run away, as from trouble or danger"

But I think we too often stop there. Remember, the problem is not the nudity, it is the lust! This is why I appreciate that PluggedIn also includes mention of tight-fitting or low-cut clothing. Men, we need to be serious about guarding our eyes from any avoidable opportunity to stumble!(Mt 6:22-23, Prov. 6:27-28) Do not deceive yourselves and justify viewing things that tempt you or make you stumble! (Gal. 6:7)

This sounds self-righteous, but it's not! I have been there. Because of my past I am haunted almost every day by the things I have seen. Purity is not something that just happens, it must be fought for. By the grace of God, you CAN have victory!

4. pass the ammunition said the following at 2:06 PM on Mar 12:

This is very interesting. Another thing to mention is how culturally derived what parts of the body are sexualized is. Western society has a breast fetish, and other societies did not sexualize the breasts at all, but rather the buttocks. Breasts were only seen for the biological function: to feed children. Women could walk around topless and no one would think anything of it. However, with globalization and Western media reaching into every corner of the globe, Western norms of beauty and sex are so widespread that only those without exposure to any media at all can resist the change in ways of viewing the human body.

5. Sara said the following at 2:13 PM on Mar 12:

"When we see someone who is without clothing, we are not to admire their form, but to cover them (Isaiah 58:7, Ezekiel 18:7, Genesis 9:22-27)."

So doesn't it follow that you think it's right for culture-crossing missionaries to 'get the natives to put some clothes on' if they go to a place where women customarily go topless, or where men might only wear belts?

What about a culture where the back of a woman's neck is considered extremely erogenous? It would be odd for their Christian missionaries to make other cultures' women cover their necks.

I guess the solution is that "without clothing" in those scripture passages you quote is an interpretable phrase: what's 'without clothing' in one place might be 'fully clothed' in another.

6. B.T.Carolus said the following at 2:20 PM on Mar 12:

I believe Christopher West talked about nudity in art when he came on the podcast. I thought he had a good point, which he summed up through the anecdote: anyone who visits the Vatican knows the difference between the Renaissance paintings of nudes inside, and the semi-pornographic billboards outside.

7. Sara said the following at 2:21 PM on Mar 12:

Something else: does this mean that if missionaries went to a place where women and men left their respective chests and pelvises bare, that they'd have to constantly avert their eyes, like all day long?

Isn't it possible that they'd just get used to it? If so, isn't it possible for the same thing to happen in our own culture, especially if we're exposed to nudity from a young age, just as people might naturally be in other countries?

8. Brian K said the following at 2:41 PM on Mar 12:

Brian:

Great name and comment. I agree that, as William Wilberforce said, we need to cease to be deceived by superficial appearances, and to confound the Gospel of Christ with the systems of philosophers.* I’m sure this comment will be rife with men claiming the opposite of what you say, but life, interactions and just plain statistics concur with what you state. And there will be many counters to Ted’s post (well, they may have tired-head now, but on previous ones) and a lot of "yea, but’s" and "well what about’s". Overall, though, I find it sad that we (and, as with you, Brian, I’ve been down that path so I find myself in that “we”) too often work more diligently at how we can call dark light than finding what is truly light. Unfortunately, that last line of thinking is just not progressive enough.

Dr. Mohler had an article recently with the quote "...contemporary Americans increasingly see religious faith as ‘more like a fashion statement, not a deep personal commitment.’". I think that is exactly what we all do at times (esp. with media) is to take faith, what should be that which defines our life and we let everything else in our life define our faith.

Just a question for anyone, when justifying various films, shouldn’t we ask if we’d watch the movie knowing that Christ was sitting next to us (in a physical sense)? I know we strive for being able to converse, but haven’t we lost some great part of our witness when an aspect of our lives as front-and-center as media plays these days looks like everyone else’s?

* - for anyone who isn’t familiar, Tim Challies and anyone willing is going through Real Christianity which has started out as a great book.

9. DannieA said the following at 2:44 PM on Mar 12:

ummm I think there is a difference between sculptures/paintings and real life...entertainment nudity...

maybe i'm just not a normal girl, but any extended sex scene makes me want to go out and justify 'hooking up'...not that I do this, but MY mind wanders.

sculptures/paintings don't do that to me.

10. Cassandra said the following at 2:45 PM on Mar 12:

Adam #2

and Genesis 1:29 advocates smoking pot and Ecclesiastes 9:10, masturbation! ;)

11. Leeandra said the following at 3:01 PM on Mar 12:

Re: women's breasts as sexual.

St. Mary nursing the Infant Jesus was a popular subject of medieval and Renaissance painters.

Also, the virtue of Charity is traditionally personified in paintings and sculpture as a bare-breasted woman nursing two children at once.

12. Whitney said the following at 3:11 PM on Mar 12:

I have to differ with the poster who said purity can happen in regards to this. Maybe it's my Calvinist theology, but purity is never achieved in this life. Just because you stay away from temptation doesn't make you pure. Keeping your thoughts in check doesn't make you pure. Even if you avoided all temptations, you would still be filthy in sin for one very important reason: it comes from YOU not from outside you.

13. Michelle said the following at 3:20 PM on Mar 12:

All I can start to say to this piece of work is AMEN. "Abstain from ALL appearance of evil", the Bible says.

It seems that so many Christians are excusing carnal junk in movies and "art" today; whether it is the language or the lack of clothing. I think, supposed followers of Christ, have become so desensitized to wickedness, that it becomes the norm to them. God has to want to spue many out of His mouth with all the carnality Christians believe to be ok.

Furthermore, to go a step beyond, what about the way Christian young men and women dress? Is it chaste? Is it in such a way that they would not be bringing attention to certain parts of their bodies and that they would glorify God who bought them with a price!

Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

14. Ted Slater said the following at 3:27 PM on Mar 12:

Some of the comments are arguing that in some cultures men are not sexually provoked by certain female body parts.

Reminds me of the skeptic's question, "But what happens to people in other countries who've never heard the gospel?" That's their way to avoid the question at hand: What do *you* say about Jesus, now that you have heard the gospel?

Sure, I suppose that certain people in certain other countries do not become sexually provoked in the same way that most in "modern/civilized" countries do. But everyone reading this blog is "modern/civilized."

Let's not avoid the real question at hand, which has to do with the relevance of nudity and portrayals of sexual intercourse in the media you and I ingest.

* * *

Regarding breasts being seen as sexual. Of course, as Scripture is clear, a mother's breast is not seen as sexual, but as a source of nourishment and comfort. I'm not talking about mother here, you understand. Right?

And regarding nude sculpture and paintings ... keep in mind that film was not available "back then." I wonder if many of them *were* in large part pornography for the upper class pagan aristocracy. How many ancient Christians either created or solicited such works?

"Back then," they did have a form of "motion picture" -- live theater. What do you think the Christians at the time thought of nudity on stage, or of live actors on-stage performing what seemed to be sex acts? Would Jesus and His disciples have attended such an event? Seriously.

* * *

It is concerning that some people are so desperate to find exceptions that they overlook the general principles here.

15. Ted Slater said the following at 3:53 PM on Mar 12:

B.T.Carolus -- you wrote that "anyone who visits the Vatican knows the difference between the Renaissance paintings of nudes inside, and the semi-pornographic billboards outside."

On face value, that sounds convincing. The thing is, though, just because something is hundreds of years old, painted by a famous artist, and in a "sacred" place -- does not exempt it from being pornographic.

Google "Michelangelo's Temptation and Fall from the Sistine Chapel Ceiling," for example, and help me understand what is going on. Has the snake interrupted something? Why is *that* being portrayed here? Is there any innocent explanation for what's depicted in this painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? And why are they still unclothed after The Fall, after they're driven from the garden? Perhaps biblical accuracy was less important to Michelangelo than the contemporary fascination with nudity?

Perhaps some of Michelangelo's "surly and crude behavior" (that was his reputation) was coming through in his artwork.

16. Brian said the following at 4:06 PM on Mar 12:

Whitney (#12)

You claim "purity is never achieved in this life", but we are clearly">http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%201:9-10;&version=31;">clearly called to it. And I think the Bible says it is possible. Are we talking about different definitions?

17. Lucy G. said the following at 4:11 PM on Mar 12:

I think it's important to note, as you have, Ted, that the context of nakedness is what is particularly important. Nakedness in an artistic context (the statue of the David, for example) is very different from another context (for example, a stripper). (Those who claim that stripping, pornography, etc., is an art form are daft.)

As others have mentioned, what is considered erotic is also culturally relative. For decades, Western women had to keep their legs and feet covered for this very reason. (The Victorians were so concerned about concealing the erotic that they insisted that bare table legs might cause men to stumble!) Also, as others have mentioned, the breast as an erotic artistic depiction has some history, but the breast was more often depicted as an image of motherhood/nurturing (particularly in medieval and renaissance art). In these cases, the breast was more often maternal rather than sexual. In fact, through the 14th century the breast was predominantly a religious symbol (symbolizing, for example, the church's nourishing us). However, by the middle of the 18th century, the breast became depicted in secular and pornographic imagery.

Thus nakedness means different things in different social (and artistic) spheres and contexts. It can mean pre-Fall innocence, for one thing. It can also mean honesty or true beauty. Or it can be provocative and erotic (see Song of Solomon, etc). There is also something about nakedness that is simply "human"--the unclothed form reminds us of the common bond of humanity.

It means many different things from a literary context as well. Nakedness as a literary trope has a variety of meanings--many of them completely non-sexual. The depiction of the three naked Graces dancing in a grove (portraying "true courtesy") in Edmund Spenser's epic poem "The Faerie Queene," is certainly not erotic, but is beautiful.

It is also interesting to note that we Westerns tend to focus on telling women to "cover up"--which isn't true of all cultures. Women seem to be the primary sexual objects for Westerns--though, as young girls are becoming more sexually aggressive, we may see a turnaround in this. We may soon see men becoming just as objectified as women have been if raunch culture succeeds.

18. Lucy G. said the following at 4:21 PM on Mar 12:

Ted,

Nudity in medieval and renaissance art is more artistic convention than pornography. It's not there to be crude--it give particular meaning to a work.

19. Lucy G. said the following at 4:32 PM on Mar 12:

Just to get to Ted's main point--most depictions of nakedness today in art and film are at least semi-pornographic (notable exceptions might be portrayals of nudity where people are being humiliated/abused--as in films about the Holocaust or slavery). You see very few artists or filmmakers taking advantage of other forms of nakedness that aren't erotic--and even if they did, these would not be properly understood and likely distorted by viewers as being sexual.

In conclusion, we don't need to be peeking into anyone's bedroom, fictional or real.

This discussion reminds me that Christian director Scott Derrickson is supposed to be making a film adaptation of "Paradise Lost." I wonder how nudity will be handled in that film. Thoughts?

20. pass the ammunition said the following at 4:45 PM on Mar 12:

Sorry Ted--I wasn't "arguing" anything. But just flip through a national geographic and its obvious that many of the "uncivilized backwards heathens" of faraway lands attach little sexual status to female breasts. This does not detract from your commentary on art and nudity, but rather adds another very relevant dimension. Think about how sexualized a woman's hair is in many Arab, predominately Muslim countries. Some Muslim women who are forced to uncover their hair in front of men at a Western airport report the same feelings of embarrassment, humiliation, and shame that an American woman would feel having to walk topless through airport security.

And as a person whose family is from one of those uncivilized irrelevant countries, I'll try not to be offended.

21. Ted Slater said the following at 5:18 PM on Mar 12:

Is it coincidence that all the "nudity isn't bad" or "other cultures/centuries don't have a problem with nudity" comments are ... from women?

Perhaps you don't understand how the unclothed female body affects men, specifically (for lack of a better term, "pass the ammunition") those from technologically "modern/civilized" countries.

You can speak of "other countries" or "other cultures" or "other centuries," but here-and-now this is an issue of concern for most men.

(BTW, "pass the ammunition," it really bothers me when people mischaracterize what I say, trying to make me look bad. I almost didn't publish your comment #20 because of your last sentence. Where have I *ever* called a non-Western country "irrelevant" or "backwards"? I used the terms "civilized" and "modern" not to disparage anyone, but to casually differentiate those countries, including non-Western ones, that have modern technologies from those that do not. I am open to alternate terms if you're able to suggest any.)

22. Lana said the following at 5:40 PM on Mar 12:

Titus 1:15
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.

23. composer girl said the following at 5:58 PM on Mar 12:

What are aspiring filmmakers (such as myself) supposed to do? As a composer, it would be foolish of me to strike out on my own with no knowledge of good music to emulate. And honestly, if I wanted a well-rounded classical education, I would need to study everything from sacred music (masses, requiems) to neutral music (symphonies and sonatas) to music that may portray themes that are morally questionable (Carmen, anyone?). I need to challenge myself with different types of music and subjects, both good and bad, to figure out what I want to emulate and what I want to avoid.

I would hope that Christian filmmakers would strive to avoid unnecessary nudity, foul language, and violence when making their films. But if Christians strive to make good films, they must study good films. And bad films. And films that are good in some ways and bad in others. If someone wants to study cinematography, he needs to study movies with good cinematography. If someone wants to study film music, she needs to study films that have good music. But what if films with good music or good cinematography have bad subject matter or scenes portraying nudity? Are we bereft of things to study because almost everything contains objectionable content?

Christian films are stereotypically of poor quality or poorly made (note the word STEREOTYPICALLY). Secular films are stereotypically well-made. If we, as Christian filmmakers, want to bring Christian films and family-friendly films to the same level of quality as their secular neighbors, do we not need to study these secular examples to discover what is so effective? What camera angles work best? What do you need to do with the lighting to make it not look like a home video? What sort of microphones or sound environments do you need to get good audio?

I would love to get some guidance from the Christian community in my pursuit of my craft, but the Christian community so often gets hung up on the details. Does it have a bad word? Then you can't listen to that song. Does it mention Jesus? It's all right then. Is there nudity? Better avoid that one. It is hard to find helpful guidance in how specifically to make good quality art, because so much otherwise good-quality art is dismissed because of a piece of objectionable content.

I didn't mean to ramble. I tend to do that with subjects about which I feel strongly. Are there any other aspiring filmmakers on the Line that share my frustration? Or am I completely alone? I apologize if this is "overly personal...or unnecessarily contentious."

24. IMO said the following at 6:11 PM on Mar 12:

I'm going to plug this book one more time: Read the book For Women Only.
It's a book based on professional surveys/interviews/etc.
Check out the chapter about how men view women sexually. Across the board...Christian, non-Christian..the perspective is the same.

25. Ryan said the following at 6:33 PM on Mar 12:

Ted--

Let's look at another art form (along the same lines of Renaissance art):

What if I'm an art student and a required part of my coursework is to draw a nude or several nudes? How might you entreat me to approach that situation?

And along the lines of certain parts being "sexual" (as opposed to, oh I don't know... FUNCTIONAL--being mammary glands and all) on a woman's body, is it a bad thing I, a guy, am not enthralled, attracted to, or in any way interested in the female body at all? It's like... you seen one, you've seen em all, and being exposed to the artwork from Michelangelo's day it's not that it isn't a big deal (it is) but I'm not sexually attracted...

Should I, or anyone else having this conversation, be concerned if we aren't responding to the body God designed in the way He intended? (Or is it the gift of celibacy???)

26. pass the ammunition said the following at 7:05 PM on Mar 12:

Ted: I actually agree with much of what you said and was just raising another point in my original post and did not mean to attack.

However, for me, your use of the word "civilized" in your reply detracted completely from the point you were trying to get across. The reason I said "I'll try not to be offended" is because I knew what you were trying to say and I've been a reader at Boundless for a while. The terms Modernized, technologically advanced, Western, more industrialized, etc. are all perfectly fine and reflect a factual state of being. Terms like civilized and advanced are loaded, subjective terms that inherently imply that the other culture is backwards and uncivilized, whether you mean it this way or not. Especially taking history into account, remember that viewing non-western countries and cultures as uncivilized was the excuse given for colonization and exploitation of their land and people. Keep in mind that a person of color from an international background is MUCH more likely to interpret the terms you used in the negative ways that I described instead of the way that you actually meant them.

However, since I think you are making a career of writing I had to call you out for your own sake and I don't mean to sound patronizing. Just think of all the white public figures and journalists who have had their careers damaged by using language they assumed where innocous, but instead opened themselves up to mischaracterizations and serious allegations of racism. Someone doing a "drive-by" reading of your work has to be able to differentiate the language you as a reasonable person uses from that of a true racist. Go over to the Stormfront website and do a search for "civilized" and you'll see exactly what I mean. Thank you for engaging me and I apologize for possibly derailing your post.

27. Michael said the following at 7:06 PM on Mar 12:

Ted;

Great blog entry! A few comments... Totally concur with your comment earlier today, re: women perhaps not understanding the effect their clinging/tight or revealing clothing has on men. I teach a HS/College Sunday School group and to a girl, they had no idea their dress was often beyond attractive.

WRT the comments about other cultures, didn't C.S. Lewis have something to say about this (I'm getting old so I don't quite remember and don't have a copy of "Mere Christianity" handy)? If I do recall correctly, he did make for allowances which seems to me offers 2 points related to this thread - first, it takes a special person to be a missionary, and second - it's often more what's in the head (i.e., lust) than what's in front of the eyes. Clearly we should flee from obviously inappropriate images (print, screen, & internet), but it is the sinful heart of man (generic use here) that is the root of the problem (imho).

Keep up the great work!

28. Kate (who is waiting to hear from law schools) said the following at 7:16 PM on Mar 12:

Ok. I majored in art history. Art is my thing, I go to the museum for fun. I have a mental list of artists who I am going to collect with the piles of money I make from being a lawyer.

Ted- Are you implying that the Sistine Chapel is pornographic? If so, how do you propose we respond to it? What kinds of art or artists are ok? And, I am curious, who is your favorite artist? I'm partial to Alex Katz, Kara Walker, Vermeer and African art.

Not to TMI, but I'm recently returning to Christianity after a rough time, so I'm not confident enough to go toe to toe with anyone on theology. But I see no need to go Council of Trent on some of the greatest artistic achievements in human history.

I understand if nudity in art makes people uncomfortable sometimes. A schoolmate of mine really struggled when she took a life-drawing class. (Apparently no one had ever explained what that actually meant to her.) She dropped the class. How she got through high school and a year of college without learning what 'life-drawing' meant is another story.

But viewing Renaissance art is to me what singing in the church choir might be to another. It bring me closer to Him. To create something so perfect and lovely, I have to believe God had a hand in it.

I'll close with a fun art history challenge- Daniele da Volterra, who is he and why does this debate make me think of him? Start your Wikipedias!

29. Catherine said the following at 8:24 PM on Mar 12:

I think you are confusing two ideas that overlap but are completely different. If a woman or man is "nude" (as in your title) it means essentially that in that context he or she is supposed to be without clothes. This would apply to most paintings and sculpture with nudes and the Puritan desire to cover these betrays the lust in their own hearts, and not that of the artist or his work (i find all of those fig leaves -or, for example, Ashcroft's covering of the justice statue- very offensive. It betrays a very low level of artistic sensitivity). The human form can be very beautiful without any sexual content.

"Naked" is when a man/woman should not in that particular context be without clothes. It is a cultural construct to some extent, but you should know when it is naked and not nude. This would refer to most naked men and women in films today. This is cheap and doesn't deserve our time or money.

There are some problems- art is supposed to be provocative, it should challenge you- and one of the ways it can do this is to allude to sexual feelings/taboos. This is a fuzzy line but I do think this type of art has value in certain contexts.

Here is one example that really offended me. The play "Wit" is about an elderly woman struggling with cancer and the health care system. The play reveals the dehumanizing effects of both on the main character. The critical last scene shows her completely naked- stripped of everything and shamed. It has immense value as an artistic choice in that context BUT the local churches refused to allow that part to be shown. It completely undermined the message of the play. Sometimes nakedness is called for too.

30. Catherine said the following at 8:27 PM on Mar 12:

I was also thinking about what you said- I wonder if restoring Christ's nakedness (not nude here!) is an appropriate artistic choice in a church? Aren't we supposed to be moved by his shame and suffering? What reveals his complete submission to God's will better than his nakedness on the cross? This is a case where you SHOULD be uncomfortable in front of an image. It should move you. I think a naked Christ would be much more effective.

31. Anthony said the following at 8:42 PM on Mar 12:

Regarding No. 15:

I highly doubt that what's going on in that portion of the chapel is oral sex, Ted. Come on. Be serious. I envy the Europeans who have largely made nudity a non-issue. People need to get over it.

The way this discussion is going, I'm imagining far too many evangelical homes adorned with Thomas Kinkade prints. God save us. That man raped art.

The American Evangelical scene, it seems, is afraid of what they do not understand. We're not supposed to understand art entirely. That's why it is provocative. That's why there's nudies running across the screen and pools of blood. Yes, sometimes it is gratuitous, but the very nature of art, which is something that God created and sustains, is found in reinvention, in startling and engrossing the viewer. I'll take a chance on lust if it means exploring God's world of art.

32. Danielle said the following at 9:10 PM on Mar 12:

Thanks for bringing up this good question. My answer kind of turned into a whole blog post of its own. I'll paste a snippet here:

All art is created for a reason, even if the reason is so basic as a guiding compulsion to create, or for the sheer joy of making something. But art also invokes a response, and I think it is this reason and response which provides the best guideline for the appropriateness of the portrayal of nudity. What is the underlying reason behind the portrayal of a naked woman in a painting? What is the response of the viewer?

It is impossible to deny that humans -- particularly men -- struggle with lust provoked by visual stimulation. Is it ever right for us to create a piece of art that could add to that struggle? To say that someone's struggle over sin is their own battle to fight is not enough. As brothers and sisters in Christ, we are obligated and privileged to help one another, to "spur one another on to love and good deeds." And our role as disciples goes beyond simply helping: we are called to avoid doing anything -- even unintentionally -- that could cause someone else to stumble.

Jesus said, But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea (Matt. 18:6).

Being exempt from similar struggles ourselves -- or being firmly convinced of the beauty and loveliness of the human form -- does not excuse us from meeting our obligations to our fellow believers. The following Scripture relates specifically to food; if we substitute the word "art" in its place, we are offered a challenging insight into our role as creators of art:

Do not, for the sake of [art], destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he [views] (Romans 14:20).

There will be nudity in art as long as there is art. But should Christians be creating it? These Scriptures convince me that the answer is no.

33. Texas Craig said the following at 10:10 PM on Mar 12:

I personally don't think that nudity and sex ever need to be seen in a film. That may sound extreme, but I think that the same artistic messages can be portrayed without either of those being graphically represented. Certainly, I have no problem with them being insinuated or even presented (without graphic depiction) as part of a film, because we have all kinds of sin, including sexual sin, discussed in scripture. But, I agree with previous comments that the visually graphic representation of sex and nudity has a more significant impact than the simple and non-graphic description. And, if it causes even one person to stumble, why would we justify it? As a believer, I should happily be willing to give up my rights to anything if it will help keep another from stumbling. But, once I start insisting upon my rights to something or disparaging others for not being strong enough to resist temptation, then I have lost the attitude of Christ.

34. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 11:17 PM on Mar 12:

I see some people writing here about what does or doesn't tempt them, in terms of nudity in art, and mentioning "artistic conventions" of various mediums and different ages, and also, describing what various cultures view as being sexual.

However, not one of these issues truly addresses the question of the Bible's view of when it *is* appropriate and permissible to deliberately view the naked human body and when it is *not* appropriate.

I am still waiting for anyone to defend artistic nudity using *Biblical* logic and principles. To simply say, "God made the human body, it's a divine work of art, and therefore, nudity in 'serious art' is okay," is insufficient. Such a statement doesn't ultimately answer the question of "Does God's word ever truly show intentional, non-necessary (outside of marriage, parenting, and the doctor's office) viewing of the naked human body to be permissible?"

As Ted writes in this piece, God did sovereignly *command* nudity, in the case of Isaiah, to make a very specific point about sin, punishment, and shame. God also allowed Jesus to be stripped of His clothing on the cross, and this reality was, in a sense, part of the punishment that Jesus bore on the cross for sinners.

Those Biblical situations are far different than almost all artistic nudity, though, and one must remember that viewing visual images of nudity is far different than reading a very brief and carefully non-descriptive account of someone being nude in Scripture.

The one exception would be the Song of Solomon, but the people in question here are married, and the *words* (not visual images) are those of Scripture, celebrating the joy of the marriage bed. I doubt that most Christians would say that this book of the Bible should be made into an erotic film-- or for that matter, into a series of paintings or sculptures depicting in detail the physical passion of the couple for each other. More importantly, what Biblical reason do we have to think that God would approve of such an "artistic choice"?

35. The G said the following at 1:30 AM on Mar 13:

Hmm, I agree with comment #4; it bothers me to see western fetishes contaminate the rest of the world (not that each culture doesn't already have its own vices), and I can't imagine myself being comfortable being in an exposed state even if I were in a culture where that was considered acceptable. And as Ted points out, I do feel violated when I'm looked at in pieces. Moreover, I feel at risk even when men look at other women like that.

But here's this:

I would feel uneasy wearing tank tops in public, but that might just be because I don't particularly like my arms. Is there, and is this, a healthy sort of shame? I grew up in Utah, and my sensibilities have been influenced by a sort of puritanism. But I guess I'd rather err on the side of conservatism; modesty hasn't hurt me yet.

36. The G said the following at 1:47 AM on Mar 13:

One other thing. Imagine this: You're a film student filming a scene from a play where two characters wake up after, uh, sharing the bed for three days. The actors take it upon themselves to make out to get into their roles; I don't want to approve this.

What would other Boundless readers do in this situation? Tell the actors not to make out? I'm not an actor and I'm ignorant about what they're "pantomiming" so I don't know if this is really necessary. At the moment, I just scribble "AWKWARD AWKWARD AWKWARD" on my script as I keep my eyes firmly averted. We haven't filmed yet, but it's going to get really uncomfortable when they're performing "in" costume ...

37. Lynda said the following at 2:09 AM on Mar 13:

Interesting comments... I'd like to speak to the "other cultures" argument.

A human being feels shame if he is in a condition which his conscience defines as "nakedness." As has been pointed out, this differs from culture to culture. Which proves once again that the conscience is a reliable tool only insofar as it has been informed by Truth -- that which is consonant with Scripture.

I find it concerning that those making reference to cultures that do not see women's breasts as sexual state it matter-of-factly, as though that's just fine. While it is true that modesty is culturally defined, it is equally true that all cultures reflect man's sinful nature and separation from God. The idea that the noble savage's nakedness is the moral equivalent of another culture's being fully clothed is a humanistic construct; you will not find it in Scripture.

Apart from the obvious function of nourishing babies, Scripture clearly associates women's breasts with sexuality and eroticism, as Ted has pointed out. God created human beings as one kind, not different kinds depending on culture. Our bodies and the gift of physical intimacy between a husband and wife are universal for all times and cultures.

The fact that some cultures have lost this sensitivity to women's breasts is reflective of what sin does to individuals and cultures. We can become inured to almost anything if we're exposed to it long enough and taught to think of it in a certain way.

I worked in a Third-World country where toplessness in women was the norm. It was very telling that when they came to Christ, without coaching from the missionaries, they began wearing clothing which covered their chests. This did not happen immediately, but as they were exposed to God's Word and their consciences became informed by Truth.

The sexuality of women's breasts is a delight both to husband and wife. (I speak as a married woman.) The culture that denies this aspect of God's gift suffers a great loss.

Sin always brings about loss.

38. Jordan C from Canada said the following at 2:27 AM on Mar 13:

I understand and appreciate that in secular art and fiction, sex between characters will occur and it can show their bond, etc.

But I never understood directors' desire to actually SHOW it. It's kind of annoying. Even before I took my faith, and subsequently what I viewed, seriously, I fast-forwarded through it.

39. Elizabeth H. said the following at 6:08 AM on Mar 13:

I took an art class once and was a little worried about the nude models. But I found that it didn't cause any temptation for me. It was just a collection of objects to draw.

I do think it is possible to look upon a nude figure without thinking about sex. However, I feel guilty seeing a guy I like in a bathing suit. For me, it depends on context and whether or not I know the person.

You know what tempts you, and you should take steps to avoid whatever triggers it.

As for others, I wouldn't want to tempt a brother or sister, so if nude art did that for them, I would make an attempt to avoid displaying such images.

40. Jonathan said the following at 8:00 AM on Mar 13:

Ted (#23) my wife just about flipped out when she read your comment. Any woman (and I do mean any) who has spent any significant time in the church has had it beaten into their skulls that they had better not cause their brothers to stumble with what they wear! And while this is true, it really aims at the wrong end of the issue...same as telling a guy to 'bounce his eyes' is focusing on the wrong end of the issue. Jesus tells us that "If you love me you will obey my commands." Notice he does not say, if you obey my commands you love me. Too often we get caught up in the 'if i don't look at a naked person then i will show i love God' or 'if i wear a full length dress and long sleeve shirt then i will show i love God' or any 'if i only do x, y, and z then i will show my love'. This is the trap I fell into in high school and it provided no escape from pornography, only depression. Our focus MUST be on loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. When that is our focus, when our love for God is so consuming that we offer our bodies as living sacrifices, then the details of obedience will fall into place. After all, I do not do what my wife wants to prove my love for her, but rather because I love her. So it is with God, I must come to the place where if I 'bounce my eyes' or avoid sexualized movies or whatever it may be because I love God and because I realize that I will be tempted to fall into sin if I deliberately subject myself to that. Ironically, within that structure there is great freedom (it is for freedom He set us free), so if I go to a movie and there is nudity I do not need to go repent, but if I go to a movie to deliberately see nudity and be titillated, well that is something different. If you notice Ted, your verses such as in Habakkuk and Job focus on the heart, not the actions themselves (not to look lustfully at a women..clothed or otherwise incidentally; to get a person drunk for the sole purpose of exploiting their sexuality). I agree clothes are a good thing, but does not God care about the heart above all? Does that not show our true loyalty so much more than whether we see a naked person?

41. Matt from DC said the following at 8:21 AM on Mar 13:

So is it good for storytellers to use unclothed bodies in their art?
Sometimes. I would wager that there are naked bodies in photographs of holocaust victims at the Holocaust museum in DC. The purpose of those photos is to tell a story and like Isaiah's and Jesus' nudity expresses the shame and horror of the situation.

Let us not forget Joseph's nakedness. He fled from sexual immortality with such force that she tore his clothes off. Thoughts?

Does the vocation of "artist" grant someone the same authority that husbands or physicians may have to view an unclothed woman?
I do not think so.

Does their vocation permit them to instruct unmarried couples to engage in sexual behavior?
No way. No one's vocation has the power to override the Word of God.

Even if so, when is it good for the rest of us to view the nakedness and sexual activity they present to us?
No, it is not good. It happens sometimes because we choose it in rebellion, peek out of curiosity, or stumble on it by accident.

On a side note, when considering boundaries for expressing intimacy inside dating relationships I draw the line at keeping it from the neck up and to not get too carried away even with that. I think that things below the neck are out of bounds because they go against the no-nakedness principle. Since we agree that nakedness is wrong. Isn't it reasonable to say that touching or staring at what is covered to protect someone else's nakedness is wrong? I think so. There is more to how I practice intimacy in dating, but the part that is relevant to this topic is not to violate with your eyes or hands the proper covering of others. (This is also why I think that men slapping men on the butt in baseball or in jest is wrong.)

42. Texas Craig said the following at 8:47 AM on Mar 13:

Composer Girl (#23):

I think there is a simple reason that Christian movies are, as you say it, "stereotypically poor or of poor quality." It's all about the money. Rarely will you find a Christian movie that has cost as much as a secular movie to make. I would venture to say that most Christians would not support spending money the way the world does when it comes to films, because we know that tens of millions of dollars can do a lot for feeding a lot of people or taking them the gospel.

Sure, you could point to some non-Christian indy films and say "look, it doesn't take that much money to make a good film." But, most indy films are not that good either. There are plenty of rare gems, but there are also plenty of gems that come from religious folks (think "Napolean Dynamite" just as an example of one that garnered attention and awards). When a lot of money is spent, a Christian film can be very good (such as Passion of the Christ). So, to me, the issue is the money spent. And, because Christians will probably never spend the many millions of dollars that most big name movies cost now to produce, the quality will always be somewhat sub-par, in comparison to the more expensive films.

Having said that, I do agree with your point that a film student or professional may be required to watch a wide array of films as part of their job. I think that fits into Ted's point about doctors or other settings where it may be necessary to view things that would not be appropriate in other contexts.

43. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:03 AM on Mar 13:

composer girl (#23),
its possible to find fine art out there that does not display nudity.

One of my favorite reliefs in Ancient Roman art is fully clothed. I think its the human mother of Remus and Romulus with the twins playing around her.

The fabric of her gown looks alive, the way it drapes over her. Its amazing how much fluidity there is in the stone "fabric". Its truly amazing, and seriously a gorgeous piece of art - that is of the same form of any piece of classical nude roman art (which neo-classical renaissance tried to emulate), only she's clothed.

There are other ways to practice drawing proportions, to! Biology Anatomy books for drawing muscles, comes to mind.

You really don't need nudity to be a good artist or culturally relevant or sophisticated.

44. Dr. Ransom said the following at 9:44 AM on Mar 13:

After reading through Ted's excellent evaluation and the responses above, I certainly agree that the don't-tempt-the-eyes arguments are solidly Scriptural and based in common sense and men's honest admissions of what causes stumbling.

But let's consider this also from the perspective of making "art," such as a movie, not just viewing it.

And I will be more aggressive than usual in trying to get my questions actually answered by the "sex acts onscreen have artistic merit" proponents who've posted here.

For all you people who think watching naked people and portrayals of sex is acceptable, and not much different from watching portrayals of violence:

Question 1: In movies with violent scenes, are the movie actors actually conducting real acts of violence, such as shooting, stabbing, torturing?
Question 2: In movies with nudity or sex scenes, are the movie actors actually appearing naked, touching other actors in private areas or acting out sex scenes?
Question 3: Would you appraise the "artistic merit" of a movie, if its actors were actually being shot at, stabbed or injured for the sake of the movie?
Question 4: If not, then why would you appraise the "artistic merit" of a movie when actors are really unclothed and acting out sex scenes?

(Unlike ways to simulate or act out violence, do actors somehow have any other method of directly portraying nudity and lewd acts onscreen without actually being naked and doing lewd acts?)
Question 5: If you as a Christian were also an actor, would you sincerely believe God would be glorified and His standards of purity upheld if you participated in acted-out representations of violence, for a movie with a storyline that ultimately upheld a Biblical worldview and concepts of good versus evil?
Question 6: Would you, as a Christian actor, sincerely believe God would be glorified if you took off your clothes and exposed yourself for a movie scene, or engaged in private touching or lewd acts with a co-star? What about your spouse? Boyfriend or girlfriend? Your mother? Your sister?

Finally ...

Question 7: In the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21), could films be made for God's glory that portray good versus evil and the ensuing violence that once marked the rebellious Old Earth?

Would such films also include representations of nudity -- could glorified saints actually take off their clothes or portray acts of lewd behavior for the sake of "art," accuracy or "authenticity"?

Again, I look forward to reading any responses to these questions, especially from "but-it's-art" proponents.

45. Chris said the following at 9:52 AM on Mar 13:

Brian writes in #3:

I do not believe that any man can see a beautiful, naked woman without at least being tempted to lust.

How about an ugly, naked woman then? Is it nakedness or beauty?

Ted Slater writes in #15:

I am reminded of a very funny skit from Mad TV (which I think I've mentioned before here), in which a senator reviewing an artist's work constantly sees "naked little boys"....even in the landscape paintings.

All joking aside, Ted, are you really serious about this? You make it sound as if Michelangelo could have snickered after finishing the painting, saying, "He-he, look at what I snuck into the painting!"

Ted further writes in a later post:

You can speak of "other countries" or "other cultures" or "other centuries," but here-and-now this is an issue of concern for most men.

There is a difference between tasteful nudity in art and modern day movies. One does not see your average 18-34 year old man lining up on a Friday or Saturday night to pay $10 to stare at nude women in Renaissance paintings at the local museum. One does not see young teenage boys clamoring to visit museums because they can see breasts without having to be over 17.

And on a side note, I again find it interesting that the original subject (the Watchmen movie) has generated more discussion about nudity than about violence.

46. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:00 AM on Mar 13:

I am still waiting for anyone to defend artistic nudity using *Biblical* logic and principles. To simply say, "God made the human body, it's a divine work of art, and therefore, nudity in 'serious art' is okay," is insufficient.

Christopher's (no. 34) point reminds me of a political activist, known for his frequent use of pot, who told me during an interview that "God made all the green plants of the Earth and called them good, therefore it's fine for me not only to smoke marijuana but support its legalization."

Sorry, it doesn't work to play by the rules of pre-Fall Genesis while ignoring the effects of sin between now and then.

47. Ted Slater said the following at 11:03 AM on Mar 13:

pass the ammunition (#26):

You are right. I was wrong. I cannot defend my use of "civilized" to describe those who are technologically more advanced, thereby implying that those with less technology are somehow "uncivilized."

My term "modern" was similarly wrong.

I read a book by missionary Bruce Olson, in which he explained that the culture of the Motilone Bari Indians to whom he was ministering were living out a "modern" Motilone Bari lifestyle, and in their own non-Western way were without doubt "civilized." Olson, of course, is right.

I do see how calling unfamiliar cultures non-"civilized" could lead to all sorts of abuse.

Thank you for correcting me on this, pass the ammunition.

48. Ted Slater said the following at 11:29 AM on Mar 13:

Jonathan (#40) -- I didn't write comment #23. Did you mean to address your comment instead to composer girl, or are you responding to a comment I made with a different number?

Catherine (#29) -- The "Spirit of Justice" statue was covered up with blue drapes because the press photographers had an inside little joke where they'd intentionally get her uncovered breast included in embarrassing ways when they photographed Ashcroft and others (e.g., Edwin Meese). It was petty, and so the Justice Department put an end to their pettiness. Ashcroft was not the one who made that decision, by the way.

Four more things:

Would "Lord of the Rings" be considered a "Christian" movie, since it was written by a Christian man with a Christian worldview? I consider it to be among the best movies ever made. I admit that I have chosen not to see certain "top greatest movies" such as "The Godfather" series, "Pulp Fiction," "Se7en" or "American Beauty." I have seen a LOT of the other movies on that list, as I really enjoy the old classics (12 Angry Men, Casablanca, Rear Window, Citizen Kane, Lawrence of Arabia, Vertigo, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The Third Man and so on.

My wife earned a master's degree in film. As a matter of principle, she really wanted to be careful about which movies she watched as part of her coursework, and so she asked the professors for "alternate" films to watch when one with questionable imagery was assigned. She was able to get her degree without compromising her principles. Go Ashleigh! :-)

I'm not so sure the artwork in the Vatican is all that "Christian." Some of it is blatantly unscriptural, recounting biblical stories incorrectly. And the nudity is more a reflection of the Renaissance culture than Christian appreciation for the human body.

I do appreciate art, though I think a lot of people think I don't, that I'm an uninformed prude. I've spent time at the Vatican in Rome, in the museums of Florence, in several museums in Paris, and museums throughout the States. Good art ennobles the soul.

49. Ted Slater said the following at 11:40 AM on Mar 13:

Dr. Ransom (#44) -- great formatting work!

In response to question 7, if there is visual story-telling in heaven (stage plays, film, TV, etc.), I don't know that there *won't* be unclothed bodies represented. I doubt there will be portrayals of sex acts, but I can't say for certain. Both are beautiful things, and without sin both actors and viewers will remain pure contemplating them.

Of course, sin exists here and now, and in heaven we won't have marriage between male humans and female humans.... Thought-provoking question, Dr. Ransom!

50. Marie said the following at 12:03 PM on Mar 13:

Regarding other cultures and bared breasts: How many young men sought out these pictures as they were hitting puberty? (Rhetorical Question)

And as for other displays of semi nudity in our culture... I take care of an elderly gentleman who is not a believer. And I was reminded again, as I was reading this blog post and he was flipping channels, of how it doesn't matter what age you are, men are conditioned to look. As he stops on the spanish channel (he doesn't speak spanish) because there's a spanish soap opera with big breasted women wearing skimpy outfits... and ended up on the big 10 channel showing womens gymnastics... not because he's interested in the sport.
Maybe it's just me, but when I'm with men and see sexual content on the screen, or see them staring at nudity or any simulation of said nudity it makes me completely uncomfortable.
There's a reason such things are awkward.

51. Sarah C said the following at 12:18 PM on Mar 13:

Ted,

I appreciate your thoughtful discussion on this subject. I do think you are on the right track in focusing on "vocation" and a person's "heart" as the main determining factors for viewing nudity. As an actress myself, working in theater, I've had opportunity to think about this subject and the implications for me and those around me. "The G" raises some good questions as far as being a part of creating art in film or theater. We should be informed about good and bad theater/film, but never at the cost of our souls. Many things can be implied without being explicitly shown and have a greater impact.

I do think that an artist is a vocation that can view and portray nudity. But it must be done with as much care and professionalism as a doctor or husband, and let's face it, that doesn't happen very often today. That it is rare, doesn't mean it is impossible to use nudity in a thoughtful and meaningful way. Using it for instance to highlight sin and the shame that accompanies it - the Holocaust, a rape, and the crucified Christ. However, never is full nudity required to make a point.

I brought this subject up with two Christian men I work with who are also artists and actors and both were adamant that nudity is never needed in film or on stage. The implication is enough. Often nudity distracts from the point being made by using it.

So yes, nudity and its appropriateness are directly tied to vocation and also to the heart. Artists must ask themselves, "Would nudity best make my point and does it best serve my audience?" If the answer is no, then there are plenty of other options. As Christians and artists, we are to love our brothers and sisters and serve them. The motivation of the heart is key.

52. Victoria said the following at 12:25 PM on Mar 13:

To Catherine in #29 and #30: I don't think Ted was saying that we should never view the unclothed human body because it is always sexual in nature. I think he was saying that, sexual or not, the human body is so sacred that it may be inappropriate to be viewed unclothed by certain people or at certain times. Also, I strongly disagree with you about having depictions of Christ fully naked on the Cross. If you were physically present at the crucifixion and were able to cover His body with an article of clothing to lend Him some dignity, wouldn't you do it? Or would you just stand by and think, "Hmm, it's far more moving this way"? If our own bodies are so sacred that they must be covered, how can we treat Christ's body which was broken for us, so lightly that we would hang fully nude depictions of Him on the Cross in order that our emotions might be more stirred? I personally wouldn't go there. I also don't think Ted is saying that all classical art, like the Sistine Chapel, is pornographic. I think what he's saying is that we shouldn't just automatically say that because something is art, free-for-all nudity is A-Okay. In everything, we should use discernment.

53. Trisha said the following at 1:06 PM on Mar 13:

It can be vice versa too (men posing nude etc. causing a woman to lust). Men and women both need to dress modestly!

54. Jo said the following at 3:25 PM on Mar 13:

Ted, 47:

You know, it's funny, but it always, without fail, impresses me when people apologise unequivocally. It's seriously one of the most powerful things we have in our power as humans to do.

You have very strong opinions Ted (which is no bad thing), but knowing that you're willing to admit when you're wrong makes me respect your views much more even when I don't agree with them.

55. Mark said the following at 4:56 PM on Mar 13:

Nude human forms in sculpture date from the famous "Venus of Willendorf" statuette, which standard scholarship dates quite early, 23,000 to 28,000 bce, and interprets as a figure for the widespread fertility cults, in which the female form is prominent.

But the Greeks were probably the earliest to demonstrate considerable skill in sculpting the nude human form in what we would consider artworks today. From the mid-seventh century bce come the earliest free-standing Greek nudes of males, first showing a stiff, formal, Egyptian influence and then moving toward the Classical Ideal of the early fifth century bce and beyond.

Greeks at first sculpted only males nude and kept females dressed modestly, but Praxiteles in the fourth century pioneered sculpting the female nude beautifully and sensually (e.g., Aprhrodite of Cyrene).

But the question here is not, of course, how fine a job the Greeks or anyone else did in portraying the nude but whether it ought to be done at all. And the generally relativistic and certainly humanistic outlook of the Greeks coheres with their love of public nudity (especially as expressed in art).

Greek religion, as a whole, did not determine morality (how could it, with gods who fornicated and murdered like ordinary people? -- a point taken up by Socrates and Plato, among others) but rather merely illustrated on the larger screen of supersized deities the acts and motivations of humans.

There were no universal Greek scriptures (apart from Homer, who was used by Greeks much as conservative Christians use the Bible today); and the perhaps prevailing view among Greeks as a whole is that expressed by Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things."

Greeks lacked the Hebrew creation account and, with it, the story of a pristine creation spoiled by sin and the object of a deity's gracious redemption. So Greek ethics and their sense of morality (and this overgeneralizes, to be sure) were produced by communal deliberation (very post-modern!), without the Hebrew sense of either the goodness of the material creation or of the sin and holiness that even a superficial reading of the Bible shouts.

And Greek aesthetics focuses on the 18- to 21-year-old male as expressing the acme of life, including beauty, without any sense of shame about the nude body or of need to cover the genitals. I wonder at the connection between this aesthetic -- as well as the nearly complete absence of Greek women from public life in the polis -- and the Greeks' approval of some homosexual relations.

So the way that celebration of the nude human body flows into the Western cultural stream, to be rediscovered in the Renaissance and there embraced even by the late-medieval Catholic church(!), is from a sophisticated culture that is conscious of its not placing God at its center, thus depriving that culture of the conscience-forming force that God and God's word provides in the Hebraic-Christian tradition. And in that biblical tradition, we simply should not overlook God's acts of redemption in the garden of Eden: the blood-sacrifice of the animal in order to clothe of naked Adam and Eve.

Is the nude human form beautiful? Of course! Fully "fearfully and wonderfully made."

Are we humans -- even we who testify to God's redemption through Christ -- yet shaped by sin and prone to weakness in the face of temptation? Yes.

Does human nakedness as an object for prolonged viewing for enjoyment (1) violate a proper sense of modesty and (2) tempt many of us to sexual lust?

We know that it does! As I age (I'm now a 50's-something man), I am more able to look at an ideal female nude artwork (one that I don't identify with any actual woman I know) without lusting and to give thanks to God for the wonders and delights of His creation. But even if this is true(and I am not deluding myself), it does not follow that such artworks ought to have been produced in the first place or that their production or existence edifies the majority who experience them.

On the contrary, I believe, from personal experience and knowledge of other boys and men, that such artworks (not to mention nudity aimed at eliciting sexual response) encourage many to sin.

The delights of nudity belong where sex does, in the garden of marriage, where both are good fruits provided by our generous Creator and Savior.

56. Ted Slater said the following at 5:05 PM on Mar 13:

Mark (#55) -- Thank you so much for the EXCELLENT historical review. It really puts so much of the classical nude artwork that we're talking about in context.

Please, everyone, take a few minutes to read what Mark wrote in comment #55.

57. Tom said the following at 7:02 PM on Mar 13:

Mark (#55)

Nice history lesson, but you're wrong on a key point. The Greeks had a finely honed sense of right and wrong based on natural law, as anyone who has read Aristotle, "Antigone" or any of Plato's dialogues would know.

Aquinas, very much a product of the Renaissance, took the Greek concept of natural law and wedded it to Christian theology to produce great works of theology such as his "Summa Theologica."

Finally, a cursory reading of Romans 1 and 2 shows that one need not have the Law (the Hebraic influence you speak of) to have formed a conscience.

In short: your premise that all Greek art is inherently sinful because produced by a people without a conscience pretty much fails. It also leads to a troubling conclusion: only art produced by Christians is worth engaging.

Whatever happened to the common grace God shows to all people? Are non-Christians incapable of beauty? For this reason, Martin Luther and other great Reformation theologians would also have trouble with your view.

58. Al said the following at 10:25 PM on Mar 13:

Even though I'm not 100% black and white on this issue, and nudity has different meaning and effect depending on its context and portrayal in art-- I do agree that nudity in film is rarely necessary in order to convey meaning, and thus, is gratuitous most of the time. This might apply to much of art in general, as well.

However, I'm not sure I agree Scripture really teaches that the nude human body is inherently too glorious to be viewed, or conversely that nakedness outside of strictly defined contexts is inherently shameful.

It was initially Adam and Eve who felt there to be something wrong in being naked. God even asks them where they got the idea that there was shame in their nudity. So it appears that the connection between nudity and shame isn't part of God's intended order-- but came out of the the corruption of creation and our perceptions and consciences as a result of sin and the Fall. Furthermore, the first clothes created were not mainly meant to hide their nude forms from those outside of Adam and Eve's marriage relationship (who are not mentioned until after they are exiled from the Garden), but appear to cover their shame and sin from each other, themselves and God.

So I'm not sure I would agree with Ted's interpretation of scripture-- that the nude human body is too glorious to view. Rather, I think that the problem lies in our hearts and how prone we are to lust-- and that like the Ark and God's holiness, we are too sinful to behold it. And I see God's gift of clothing in Scripture as His grace for our corrupted and distorted perceptions, lusts, and hearts.

In the meantime, I pretty much agree that we probably all should see less naked people and wear more clothes.

59. H.A.P. said the following at 4:31 AM on Mar 14:

53# Thank you for reminding everyone this is not only an issue for men!

I believe parts of the Louvre were much more tempting for me than they were for my husband! The heart certainly is the key, but needless temptation is silly. I'm an art lover, but quickly realized I need to be more discerning concerning consumption for my sake and my husbands. Yes, we were in Paris on a romantic holiday when we were married less than a year... maybe that affected my responses??? (I didn't find the same trouble at the Vatican a few years earlier....hmmm)

60. Abigail said the following at 9:50 AM on Mar 14:

I only read about half of these comments, so I'm not sure if anybody else brought this up...

But something that was missed was that Adam and Eve were only aware of their nakedness as shameful AFTER the fall, and God only clothed them then. Obviously, that means that humans are now subject to lust and embarrassment at nakedness, but I still think the point should have been made that nakedness was not originally bad. I doubt it just had to do with Adam and Eve being married, either.

61. Michael said the following at 9:56 AM on Mar 14:

Interesting reading, these replies.

What seems clear is that many of the participants have a real problem with submission (to God's will). Defending "nudity for art's sake" or "boy, those Puritans were prudes" really misses the point [[brief sidebar comment - a good reading of what the Puritans really stood for would clearly and immediately demonstrate their profound appreciation for what God has given mankind and their desire to respect it and keep it safe - far from being prudes, the Puritans were actually quite the romantics - read some of their poetry and they often quoted from Song of Solomon in their sermons]].

God wants us to be holy and without stain; and He wants a relationship with us that is pure, intimate, and monogamous. We are to cherish our relationship with Him above all else.

God uses "nature" to help us understand this relationship (Romans 1). Thus, He made our bodies desirable to the opposite sex (in general) & VERY desirable to our spouse (specifically) - a shadow or type of how He wants us to view Him [[after all, an attractive, desirable body serves no real useful purpose - God could have made the mating desire a strictly biological imperative - like animals in heat. So the fact that we see beauty in nudity, that nudity is something we all seem to desire (in both good and bad, proper or improper ways) must mean God had something greater in mind when He put this desire in our hearts]].

If we succumb to the general desirability and play the field (pornography, multiple sexual partners, etc.), we are practicing "idol worship." If we hold fast to desiring only our spouse, we "demonstrate" our understanding of worshiping the one and only true God.

Thus, we are to be monogamous in marriage to another believer because we are to have "no other gods but God," that the monogamous relationship to another believer is to be heterosexual in nature because we are different from God, and there is a love/loved, led/leader aspect to this relationship (Ephesians 5) because it perfectly describes our human relationship to God - He loves, we are His beloved; we submit, He is our eternal Head. Anything that causes a departure from this God-ordained order is SIN. And we are commanded to avoid the occasion of sin to include fleeing from it if we have to.

So is nudity in art unacceptable - by and large I would argue "yes" as it it integrally related to a much larger issue - our relationship with God - and has the GREAT potential to undermine and treat this relationship much too lightly. Are there places in our culture where nudity could be acceptable - yes, but I would say we don't exercise as much discretion and caution as we should.

Seems to me that from one side of the gallery, there's too much "me," & too little focus on living a godly life. Not against art, but there is so much to do out there in this fallen world, why would a Christian support such a contentious issue at the expense of the Great Commission?

Sorry for the long ramble, but in looking back 25 years or so to my mid-20s, I was where many of these readers seem to be now and want to warn my younger brothers and sister in Christ that "it's art, it's not sin" is a very dangerous and seductive trap. Like the Puritans of old, I've finally come to learn that it is better to cherish and protect than to toss such a wonderful pearl to the swine (as it were).

Blessings.

62. Jonathan said the following at 11:53 AM on Mar 14:

Ok. Here is a very simple inquiry. From whence does sexual immorality come? Scripturally speaking, what is the source of impure thoughts?

63. James said the following at 1:31 PM on Mar 14:

It's understandable we'd have have different views on this subject... that's the beauty of art and it's interpretation. I'd only caution us not to lower ourselves to a condescending attitude towards those who's opinions differ. You can kinda see it in the phrasing sometimes and in my mind that's more bothersome and problematic than what is actually being said... and I'm guilty of this myself sometimes. I try to remind myself of the phrase we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. :)

64. Cale said the following at 4:13 PM on Mar 14:

First, let’s simply stipulate that when it comes to movies, almost always a depiction of nudity is going to be unnecessary and gratuitous.

But I’m disturbed by some of the statements concerning nudity in other forms of art. Michelangelo was a pornographer!? Do you really mean to say that? The same man who painted a reverent “Last Supper” and sculpted “The Pieta” was a pornographer!? And you read waaaaay too much into that image of Satan tempting Adam and Eve (Ted Slater, #15). Sure, it’s not 100% biblically accurate, but one could say the same thing about “The Passion of the Christ,” which took liberties with both history and biblical theology.

Which reminds me of a joke: A man visits a psychiatrist, who shows him a Rhorsach inkblot. “What do you see?” the shrink asks. “I see a Roman orgy,” the patient replies. “Hmm,” says the shrink. He shows the man another inkblot. “I see a Roman orgy,” the man replies. “Hmm,” says the shrink. He shows the man a third inkblot. “I see a Roman orgy,” the man replies. The shrink says, “Sir, you have a very dirty mind.” “Me!?” the man asks. “You’re the one showing all the dirty pictures.”

A refusal to consider any art that features nudity blocks you off from the vast majority of great art from the Western world. It shows an gross misunderstanding of art and its historical context.

I’m afraid to say this, but the responses here to nudity in classical art say more about the responder than they do about the art.

65. Jacob said the following at 4:13 PM on Mar 14:

Reading the Line is a rare thing for me, but I'm glad I stopped by today. I just want to encourage everyone to read #34's comments, and remind readers that our own thoughts, ideas, and opinions MUST be subjugated to what's in Scripture, the absolute and only authority on truth that we have. Hopefully that's all I need to say. :-)

66. Tom said the following at 5:56 PM on Mar 14:

Christopher (#34)

You ask, ""Does God's word ever truly show intentional, non-necessary (outside of marriage, parenting, and the doctor's office) viewing of the naked human body to be permissible?"

This is an argument from silence, a classic logical fallacy. It proves nothing. There are a lot of things we do in everyday life and in church life that God's Word does not tell us positively to do.

I'm not defending nudity in films, but just pointing out that your argument doesn't hold water. Just sayin' ...

67. The G said the following at 6:30 PM on Mar 14:

Mark's (#55) third to last paragraph brings to mind something I've read elsewhere; that the difference between Classical art and modern sexually arousing images is that the nudes of the past were idealized and lacked (can't think of the exact term) "personalization," or the quality of making a figure more individualistic and real.

Regardless, I prefer the company of clothed figures.

I just read this and found the section "Michaelangelo and Playboy" to touch on this thread: http://hsi-online.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=150&Itemid=83

68. Jo said the following at 6:41 AM on Mar 15:

66. The G:
"the nudes of the past were idealized and lacked (can't think of the exact term) "personalization," or the quality of making a figure more individualistic and real."

Couldn't the same be said of porn?

69. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:50 PM on Mar 15:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description (refering to hard-core pornography); and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." -Supreme Court Justice Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio

I guess this topic decided to rear it's nude head again. This will not focus on actual "sex acts" in art as that is another discussion, albeit related. I'll just focus on plain nudity.

After reading through all the comments, I will say that the main problem it seems is where is "the line" in nudity in art.

For example, as rightly stated some cultures have different standards of decency. For some, wearing merely a knee-high skirt would be considered "lust-producing" among the populace, while for others it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

The problem is where is that line drawn? How would Ted respond to criticism from some in the Muslim world that his wife (if she did wear knee-high length skirts out in public) was inciting men to lust? Would he agree and be inclined to do something about it, and tell other women in America to stop doing the same? I seriously doubt it.

Some may argue that some body parts are "universally erotic", yet I would disagree. Again, to us a fully bare breasted woman might be inappropriate but to a Bushman in Africa it might not be. If we follow the "err on the side of caution" argument, we would be best to have all women wear burqas.

Remember that art often reflects the culture of a specifc time period. Granted, sometimes the culture can be largely pagan, but it is not always so (e.g. during Renessiance Europe). Thus art may simply be reflecting what is acceptable viewing in the general populace. Obviously, not always (as with the case of full nudes), but again, it's difficult to define where "the line" is.

Rather than argue about specifics, as I posted in an earlier blog by Boundlessline some time ago I usually go by three guidelines:

- "What message is the art trying to send?"
- "What is the person(s) doing in the artpiece?"
- "Is the nudity/sex/etc. 'necessary'?"

It's not perfect of course, and it won't catch every instance of inappropriateness, but it does not easily get stuck in rigid rules either.

70. Mark said the following at 1:27 PM on Mar 15:

Tom (#57) condemns “a key point” in my post (#55) that doesn’t even exist in it: namely, #55 does not express any of the following that Tom somehow finds in it: that Greeks were “without a conscience”; that “all Greek art is inherently sinful”; or the conclusion from his own reasoning that he wrongly attributes to post #55 -- that “only art produced by Christians is worth engaging.” Not my point(s) at all.

In a related overreach, Tom (#65) wrongly labels Chris’ question (#34) an “argument from silence.” Chris’ question is not an argument. It may be an assertion formed as a rhetorical question, indicating the answer it expects the reader to supply – in this case that God’s word does not express approval for “non-necessary” viewing of the nude human body. Either it does, or it doesn’t. The point is one of data and fact, not argument.

It’s a good question, and its answer will no doubt end up as a premise in an argument; but neither the question nor its answer in an indicative statement constitutes an argument, let alone a fallacious one.

I would like to say more about conscience, about how, as a standard feature of human beings, it is universal, while, at the same time, it is formed in better and worse ways by the family and social contexts in which one grows up; and about the connection between how one’s conscience is formed and the activities one will consequently approve and disapprove. The topic pertains directly to accounting for why one cultural tradition – the ancient Greek, for example – approves of nudity in art, while another, -- the biblical tradition, for example – does not. But the best I can do without more time is to refer those interested to two excellent books by Jay Budziszewski: *The Revenge of Conscience* and *What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide*, both from Spence Publishing.

71. Lynda said the following at 1:47 PM on Mar 15:

Tom (#65)

In response to Christopher (#34) you said, "This is an argument from silence, a classic logical fallacy. It proves nothing."

You are correct in saying there are a lot of things we do in everyday life that God's Word does not tell us to do. However, in this case you have misapplied the "argument of silence" as a fallacy of logic.

The argument of silence, as used here, means just that: That Scripture is silent on an issue, therefore we cannot draw authoritative conclusions one way or another. That is clearly not the case with nudity.

Parallel: We have God's command not to murder. One would not say that because Scripture is silent on exemptions to that command, that we are therefore free to entertain all sorts of exemptions—which could effectively negate the command itself.

If God gives a command, any exemptions are His to give, whether explicitly or derived via principle. Otherwise, the command stands as it is.

As an illustration, God forbids divorce. But He also states the exemption: infidelity. (We can also arguably deduce other examples from Scriptural principles, e.g., a right to self-defense, if one spouse is threatening the other's life.)

With regard to nudity, Scripture repeatedly indicates that we are to be clothed and modest. Therefore, absent explicit Scriptural exemptions—or applicable principles from which to derive legitimate exemptions (which is what we are struggling to discern on this forum)—we are bound by that instruction.

To paraphrase Christopher's question, which I believe in context is legitimate: "Given God's commands and principles against nudity, do we see Scriptural examples (other than the obvious ones of marriage, medical need, etc.) of permissible nudity?"

72. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 3:51 PM on Mar 15:

Tom (#66),

The statement of mine that you quoted is indeed a logical fallacy-- *if* read in isolation from its context. The context for my statement is Ted Slater's careful teaching here, *from the Scriptures,* on Biblically appropriate and inappropriate nudity.

Can you honestly read Ted's Scripture-centered, carefully reasoned post and still make the case that God approves of our showing (or viewing) the naked human body in art? If you can make that case, I'd truly like to see you do so-- from Scripture, as Ted did for the case that he made.

73. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 3:56 PM on Mar 15:

Not that I'm implying that Ted *necessarily* shares my viewpoint on this issue! :-) (I don't know that he does!)

74. JB said the following at 4:50 PM on Mar 15:

Mike Theemling,

I think you make an excellent point about the influence of culture on perceptions of the body. I'd take your argument even a bit further - we should recognize that the Bible itself was written within a specific cultural context. Obviously, not everything in the Bible is culturally bound, but that doesn't mean nothing is. Specifically, I think Ted's argument in the OP that a woman's breasts are, or ought to be, universally erotic fails to account for the specific cultural context of the passages he cites.

Ted mentioned earlier in the comments that we shouldn't lose sight of the realities of our culture here and now in discussing how bodies have been seen in other times and places. He's right about that. However, I think we should also be aware that our culture is not monolithic by any means. Though we all share the same culture here, more or less, we also probably sincerely differ in our responses to depictions of nude bodies. Those differences are real, not invented as a matter of convenience or to promote permissiveness. Individual judgments are what is needed here, guided by solid principles.

75. Tom said the following at 5:26 PM on Mar 15:

Mark (#70)

I don't want to turn this into a prolonged debate, but here are your exact words: "[The Greeks had] a sophisticated culture that is conscious of its not placing God at its center, thus depriving that culture of the conscience-forming force that God and God's word provides in the Hebraic-Christian tradition."

It is entirely plausible to draw my conclusions from that statement that (a) the Greeks were without a conscience (although I should have been clearer in adding the "Hebraic-Christian tradition" portion of the quote) and (b) that therefore any art created without that tradition is inherently sinful.

You also say, "Greek ethics and their sense of morality (and this overgeneralizes, to be sure) were produced by communal deliberation (very post-modern!) ..." But again, anyone who has read Aristotle, the play "Antigone," or any number of Plato's dialogues will know that that simply is not the case; the Greeks had a keen sense of natural law, even if they often didn't live up to it, which is just symptomatic of fallen humanity in the first place and is true also of Christians. Indeed, our Western jurisprudence until about 125 years ago was strongly influenced by this sense of natural law from the Greeks and later the Romans. There was no "communal deliberation" involved except perhaps in how to apply certain principles, which we have even today in our form of government.

Next, as to the argument from silence (and also to Lynda (#71), Chris' statement is indeed an argument from silence.

Let's leave out the specific words and just use letters: "Does God's word ever truly show 'A' to be permissible?"

God's Word doesn't show a lot of things to be permissible, including mowing my lawn or reading posts on the Internet. By Chris' reasoning, such things are therefore impermissible. But in fact that form of an argument proves nothing, as I clearly said.

In fact, that form of argumentation leads to a lot of mischief from people who want to impose different doctrines on the church where Scripture has nothing to say one way or the other.

Mine is not an argument then to say that viewing nudity is permissible, since there are plenty of negative arguments and clear commands against it in Scripture. (And Lynda, you simply prove my case by saying, "The argument of silence, as used here, means just that: That Scripture is silent on an issue, therefore we cannot draw authoritative conclusions one way or another."

I think you're being tripped up by the specifics (nudity, etc.) instead of focusing on the structure of the argument itself.

76. Tom said the following at 9:10 PM on Mar 15:

Christopher (#72)

You miss my point. I'm not saying that Scripture approves our looking at nudity. My point is that the structure of your argument (regardless of the topic) is a classic argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy. An argument stands or falls on its structure, not the context or topic.

You and I don't disagree on the larger point. I'm trying to be helpful by pointing out that the way you framed your argument doesn't work. Just sayin' ...

77. a girl said the following at 9:32 PM on Mar 15:

Regarding #69 and all those other posts about different cultures and sexual body-parts--

Are you a bushman?

How do you know that people in other cultures are not being enticed? In our culture, just because woman wear revealing things doesn't mean people are enticed.

78. Dayita said the following at 2:49 AM on Mar 16:

For what it's worth, I find a gaze into my eyes to be much more sexually explicit, than nearly any touch...

79. Mark said the following at 2:19 PM on Mar 16:

Tom (#75), I respond to you throughout your post to keep all comments in the best context. My comments are always within square brackets, introduced by “M:”

You wrote . . . 75

Mark (#70)

It is entirely plausible [M: “Sez who” that it’s plausible? Not to me. You are injecting into my writing views you disagree with and seek to disprove. But they aren’t my opinions or my written expressions!] to draw my conclusions from that statement that (a) the Greeks were without a conscience (although I should have been clearer in adding the "Hebraic-Christian tradition" portion of the quote) and (b) that therefore any art created without that tradition is inherently sinful. [M: I challenge you: Construct a valid syllogism from my words in post #55 that entails your conclusions (a) and (b). (Don’t settle for what seems plausible, which is a less rigorous and potentially much more subjective relationship between premises and conclusion than entailment is.) I don’t think it can be done, but I’ll welcome your attempt, if you accept the challenge.]

You also say, "Greek ethics and their sense of morality (and this overgeneralizes, to be sure) were produced by communal deliberation (very post-modern!) ..." [M: accurate quotation.] But again, anyone who has read Aristotle, the play "Antigone," or any number of Plato's dialogues [M: I’ve read them.] will know that that simply is not the case; the Greeks had a keen sense of natural law [M: I agree with you.], even if they often didn't live up to it, which is just symptomatic of fallen humanity in the first place and is true also of Christians. [M: I agree.] Indeed, our Western jurisprudence until about 125 years ago was strongly influenced by this sense of natural law from the Greeks and later the Romans. [M: Again, I agree with you and pray for the day that our jurisprudence builds on natural law again.] There was no "communal deliberation" involved except perhaps in how to apply certain principles, which we have even today in our form of government. [M: You agree with me! Your “except” clause refers precisely to that activity that I called “communal deliberation.” Isn’t “apply(ing) . . . principles” a common practice in moral reasoning? Would you deny that the disputatious Greeks argued, or deliberated, about this very application? And wasn’t this communal deliberation absent the special revelation of God (Yahweh) to the ancient Hebrews? That’s all I asserted in post #55. And, yes, we deliberate in this way today, as do, I presume, all societies.]

[M: Perhaps this is a point at which our discussion can advance. One never knows how much to include in a single, and a first, post. What follows was in my mind, but it seemed too much to include the first time, although I referred to it with my bibliographical recommendations in my last paragraph of post #70. It may be too much now, but here goes: How does the natural law relate to universal conscience, especially since we witness among societies conflicting socially approved practices? If conscience and natural law are deposited universally by God, why don’t societies agree down to the tiniest detail on what’s moral and immoral, even if they don’t live up to what they know to be moral?

[Medieval thinkers proposed this solution, which is as convincing as any I know of: Conscience, since the Fall, is fragmented, not integrated and unified. Because of sin, it exists on (at least) two levels, deep conscience and surface conscience. Deep conscience (what these thinkers called synderesis) is universally informed by the natural law and cannot be seared or silenced or effaced. Surface conscience (conscientia), however, can suffer all these abuses and can be, in these ways, malformed or properly formed. Surface conscience can be shaped as much by vice as by virtue, producing persons and societies that are vicious and virtuous to different degrees. (Aquinas discusses this in his Summa treatment of law, Question 94, Art. 4 & 6.) Thus the natural law informs deep conscience always to do good and avoid evil, to honor father and mother, not to kill, not to steal, etc. (although the exact contents of this law obligating all and known to all is debated among natural lawyers).

[But surface conscience interprets and applies these imperatives to present reasoning and behavior. Because surface conscience is formed by one’s sin-influenced social context, we can account for (some, if not all) contradictions among societies in what behaviors each views moral. (I’m attempting, perhaps poorly, to condense much fuller and better discussion by Jay Budziszewski in The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man and What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide, esp. pp. 79-81.)

[Some differences may result from innocent differences in reasoning, while many result from universal and sinful human efforts to escape responsibility for sin. Further, some differences result from a difference in the moral sources a society embraces.

[And here is where differences between Greeks and Hebrews loom large. Greek deities do not give the law in any way comparable to Yahweh’s giving of law (as a part of establishing his special covenant) to Moses and the children of Israel. Greeks and Hebrews are alike members of a post-Fall humanity and equally sinful, but only the Hebrews received the gift of Torah (“law” in the sense we often think of it, as well as revelation in a sense broader than criminal and civil statutes); the Hebrews received with Torah the sense of human sinfulness and of God’s holiness that I believe is more or less absent from -- or at least subdued in -- ancient Greek culture. And this special revelation of Yahweh becomes the central moral force that formed the Hebrews’ surface conscience (or was supposed to form it; their idolatries and backslidings from the covenant pepper the Old Testament).

[This special revelation of God’s Torah, even of the Person of God, including God’s holiness, accounts for the absence in ancient Israelite (and later Jewish) cultural tradition of the species of nudity we are debating. All peoples knew and know the natural law; but the Greeks lacked Hebrew special revelation, and that lack contributes, as an absence, to the forming of their surface conscience. Lacking that special revelation, with the prominence it gives to God’s holiness, we see Greek culture transgressing universal norms of modesty and shame, and doing so step by step – first shamelessly delighting publicly in the nude male, then, later, overcoming residual shame and modesty to delight publicly in the nude female. And our postings offer nearly every rationalization imaginable for this step-by-step erosion of a deeply planted prohibition. Don’t we find this very pattern operating in our relationship to sin, our slide from a stern “No” to cozy flirting, to cautious commission, to brazen “coming out” in various ways? I have to confess so for myself.

[Nudity in classical art poses difficult challenges: It is a significant part of our western cultural tradition because it exists with such strong presence (and was originally a clear break with aesthetic tradition) and because it constitutes an acme of artistry; therefore, it deserves an appropriate acknowledgment, whatever that may be. But because I believe it simultaneously manifests a glorying in that which is shameful – not in the beautiful human form itself, but in the presenting of that form for enjoyment outside of marriage – I believe that a Christian acknowledgment has to sermonize to some extent, to point to the finally regrettable confluence of amazing human techne, or art / skill, with a tragic transgression of the bounds of holiness. I expect many -- non-believer or believer alike -- to agree with me, because our surface consciences are so shaped by a culture long “slouching toward Gomorrah.” I simply express what my conscience – deep and surface, to the extent that I know it – affirms as good, true, and beautiful.]

Next, as to the argument from silence (and also to Lynda (#71), Chris' statement is indeed an argument from silence. [M: No, it is not an argument of any kind, good or bad. And the reason is exactly the phrase you use – “structure of . . . argument.” No statement (by which I mean a single assertion) is an argument. By definition (Aristotle’s *Rhetoric* comes to mind as one source; but see Stephen Toulmin’s *The Uses of Argument* for analysis that specifies more elements in an argument), an argument consists of a claim (often appearing as a conclusion) supported by at least two premises. The classical syllogism exemplifies one form of argument: Major premise, followed by minor premise, from which a conclusion necessarily follows. Chris asked a rhetorical question. Transformed into a declarative sentence, it is a statement, an assertion. It is not an argument, any more than a human kidney is a human being. What you have done to “make” Chris’ statement into an argument is to have supplied one or more premises and a conclusion to his single assertion. That is, you have produced a rhetorical enthymeme (see Aristotle’s *Rhetoric* and a boatload of scholarship about it for more) by adding to what you quoted from Chris other elements that seemed apt, or plausible, to you. But the argument that you reject as fallacious is one you created; and Chris may or may not have intended it with his single statement.]

[M: I omit the rest of post #75.]

80. Mark said the following at 3:24 PM on Mar 16:

I revise my next-to-last sentence in my next-to-last paragraph of #79 to

"I DO NOT expect many -- non-believer or believer alike -- to agree with me, . . . ."

81. Lynda said the following at 4:56 PM on Mar 16:

Tom (#75)

You wrote, “And Lynda, you simply prove my case by saying, ‘The argument of silence, as used here, means just that: That Scripture is silent on an issue, therefore we cannot draw authoritative conclusions one way or another.’”

On the contrary, Tom. You are confusing God’s silence on a command itself with His silence on any exceptions to a command. There is a critical difference!

This issue is one not just of classical argumentation but of applying a proper hermeneutic. (This will be my last post on this subject as I don't want to drive it into the ground.)

Your assumption about your lawnmower, etc. is valid only insofar as God is entirely silent about the use of lawnmowers. He also does not instruct me as to what color my toothbrush must be. Therefore we infer a certain amount of freedom in our choices in these matters, and use other Scriptural parameters and principles which might apply in helping us to make God-honoring decisions on those matters. (E.g., does it harm my brother? Does it exemplify good stewardship?)

Can you see how the argument of silence only holds when God IS silent, as in the case of your lawnmower? My whole point is that He is NOT silent about human nudity. He says repeatedly, in many ways, that the human form is to be covered. Therefore, we had better be extremely careful about deriving exceptions to this principle which He does not clearly give, either explicitly or in principle! THAT is where we can introduce great mischief. (And for that reason I am grateful that so many in this forum are taking great pains to work through this issue Biblically.)

For instance, God commands us not to commit adultery. Does He give any exceptions to that? No? Then do you assume you are free to follow your own conscience as to exceptions, since He is silent on any EXCEPTIONS to His instructions regarding adultery?

He commands us not to murder (referring to murder specifically, not taking a life in self defense, in war, or in capital punishment). Does He give any exceptions which would allow us to murder? No? Then are we free to decide for ourselves regarding exceptions, following our own consciences?

He tells us He hates divorce and does not allow it. Does He give any exceptions? Yes. And those (whether explicit or implied by principle) are the only exceptions we are permitted.

That is why Christopher was correct to ask whether Scripture relates any incidences of allowable nudity – he is attempting to discover what exceptions, if any, God permits, and the circumstances of those exceptions. How else are we to discover Scriptural principles which legitimately and accurately further our understanding of this issue?

82. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 5:15 PM on Mar 16:

Tom (#76),

Again, the statement (in the form of a rhetorical question) that I made was a statement within a context (the context being Ted's article and its Scriptural content).

I admit that not every specific situation that people may face is literally addressed in Scripture (such as viewing nudity in art or not). I agree that just because God doesn't specifically declare something to be permissible does not *necessarily* mean that He forbids it (in everyday life, that is-- I believe church services to be another matter, but that's a different issue).

However, Tom, there are Biblical *principles* which are derived from very clear passages in the Bible. Ted made reference to many of these passages, regarding nudity and/or the viewing of it, in his article. I made my statement in the context of both the passages and the principles. The statement should not be taken as a sufficient, stand-alone, argument. I studied too much philosophy and logic at my university to make *that* mistake! :-)

83. Greg said the following at 6:24 PM on Mar 16:

Great post Ted. I see far too many comments here that stem from personal opinions and hormonal justifications. Here's my take.

I've been pondering the same issues recently as I've been studying Renaissance art in my art history class. As an art major, ignoring the masses of great classical art throughout history would be irresponsible. On the other hand I need to remind myself that nudity in art isn't permissible just because the giants of history employed it. While we shouldn't ignore historical works such as the Sistine Chapel or the more questionable art of Picasso, the balance comes by both applauding the technical value of the work in itself while possibly condemning the ideology of the artist. An artist such as Michelangelo may've employed a good deal of Biblical themes, but a look at his lifestyle and his fascination with nudity stemming from secular humanism leads me to love his talent and work but also be judge him to be wrong in his thinking and his employment of nudity in his art. I believe Francis Schaeffer pointed out that Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, with it's fractured abstract style featuring nude prostitutes, was successful in using nudity to convey a message of brokenness and emptiness, but on the other hand I see such work as unwholesome, stemming from an unbiblical worldview.

Artists, let's learn from the greats of the past, but as our cultures around us grow increasingly permissive let's decide to uphold Christ in our art--be it painting, sculpture, photography, or film.

84. D said the following at 8:06 PM on Mar 16:

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me just how many people love to argue on the internet.

As professing believers in Christ, I would think that rather than attempting to justify nudity in "art"/"culture", one would at least try to view things through God's eyes.

Could the real problem with many posters be that they have no real concrete idea of who God is and what is pleasing to Him? If so, please see 1 Peter 1:14-16 for starters.

I do not believe that if Jesus Christ physically manifested Himself in one's living room, He'd be happy to see one watching nude scenes. I'd be very surprised if anyone who claimed to be a Christian/know Him believed that He would be pleased. We must remember that God is always with us and watching us, and the Holy Spirit lives in us, and we are directed not to grieve the Holy Spirit.

I think even if you aren't looking at a naked person with lust, it's not your place to be looking at a naked person (who isn't your spouse, baby getting diaper changed, etc). Therefore, it's not right. Basically, I cannot picture Christ Himself doing it, so it's not something I should engage in actively or passively.

At the end of the day, we claim to be Christians - that means we're supposed to be following Christ and living according to His example and thinking (and consequently living) in a manner that glorifies Him.

I know we are still human, living in a messed up world, but that's no reason to stop trying to live godly and holy lives. And we can do ALL things throught Christ who strengthens us...

I think I went a littie off topic. To the poster who made the comment about the nudity in Watchmen generating more comments than the violence, I think that is generally the way because the damaging effects of violence are clear for all to see, but the nudity is more subtle and seductive, and hence more dangerous. That's my opinion anyway.

Do I think there is a place for nudity in film? No. I believe that Satan is employing such tactics in the media to keep the masses in bondage to their flesh. Yeah, I said it!

For ages good films were made without using such cheap tactics. "12 Angry Men" and "Star Wars" are good examples. More recently, the awesome Lord of the Rings trilogy.

We Christians need to stop trying to fit in with the world, and instead wake up, put on God's armour and take the fight for purity to the cinemas! :D

85. Random Film Student said the following at 10:57 PM on Mar 16:

I am also a film student. (There seem to be alot of us around these days) and at times there are cases especially when contracts are involved and you are looking for entry level work in our field that it is not possible to avoid this subject. Though we as filmmakers in the industry can lessen the impact (we still just as much as any doctor must guard ourselves with the word.)I think the better way to summarize our part is that discretion (thinking things out beforehand) is the better part of valour. So before I sign the contract I must make sure that that is what God would have me do.

And as for accusations of bad christian movies because of budgets I'm just going to assume you have been under a rock the last 5 years or so because the Indie film movement is where movies are headed. You can make a well made movie for alot less. In fact even major movie studios these days are becoming more of Banks than they are production houses. They buy the rights and then take and cleanup with a couple extra higher budget scenes and ta-da. The secret is in networking and how things are done. You can get a high quality crew by offering in thier contracts a micro percentage of the gross income. Honestly I think it's more shameful on christians to produce shoddy work than it is for them to work for a non christian and do excellent work. Film is a trade just like any other there are risks and benefits and you must study, sweat and bleed over it just as if you were a construction worker. The only difference is filmmakers don't have nice $20 dollar an hour salaries in most cases and in most it is backbreaking and mindnumbing work.

86. Chance said the following at 10:25 AM on Mar 18:

My Background
I have been fascinated with the visual arts as long as I can remember. Most of my life I have wanted to be an artist and now 20 years old, I have been seriously studying the visual arts under a skilled mentor for 6 years in addition to years of self instruction before that. I even went so far as to apply for, and be accepted into, one of the top rated art schools in the country before finally coming to a conclusion on this very issue, the question of nudity in art, one that I have been struggling with for years.

With that background, let me say that I love the arts, and that during my years of art study my greatest interest and desire was to be able to represent people, the pinnacle of God's creation. I have spent many hours studying anatomy and figurative drawing, working from illustrative reference and (sadly) from photography.

As a christian I struggled with the question of the necessity and acceptability of creating artwork containing depictions of people in the nude. I spent a lot of time justifying the use of inappropriate reference material, citing the "this is my profession's requirement" and "I cannot succeed without this study" arguments. I was never comfortable with it.

I finally reached a decision point when faced with the prospect going to art school where I would be sitting in a room drawing a naked individual who stood right before me. It was then that I realized (as I should have long before) that I could not stand the idea of looking into the eyes of my future wife and knowing that I had consciously and willingly subjected my eyes to the body of someone other than her. For some reason the immediacy of actual exposure to nudity flipped the switch in my mind that had grown rusty from the constant desensitization of the media.

A Perspective
As I finally relinquished my art to my heavenly Father, my eyes began to open and I could see things that my death grip on "my version" of art had hidden from me. Because I was pursuing art my way and not God's way, it had become a door for all types of sin to enter into my life. With my decision not to attend art school I felt liberated and finally began to successfully clean other lustful garbage out of my life that had been clinging to the foothold of my unwholesome art.

The first thing that needs to be considered when we question God's view on artistic nudity in any medium is; where is my heart at. Am I relying on my own understanding, or fear, or desire; or am I trusting God and erring on the side of obedience even when I don't understand it.

As a guy I cannot look on the nakedness of a woman without being aroused. This is a wonderful aspect of the way God created me and I look forward to the perfect fulfillment of this part of my being once I am married. Outside of marriage it induces me to lust. Period. This saddens my heavenly Father, the last thing I want to do, so I will avoid viewing nudity.

I have heard and made the argument myself that, as an artist, we learn not to lust as we objectify the figures we draw/paint/film. When I discussed this with my pastor, he, with a single offhand comment, gave me the most frightening and eye opening perspective on that argument that I have ever heard.

After telling me that God did not intend for us to be looking on the bodies of others outside of marriage and family context, and that doing so would present constant temptation, he said that "if it doesn't prove to be a temptation, then you have even bigger problems to worry about"

That made me sit back in my seat and think. Why would I want to harden myself to the point where I view people as objects? Why would I want to overcome and suppress my attraction to a woman's body? Would that not be a perversion of the way God created me to function? After participating in international art forums, talking with and viewing the artwork of hundreds of modern artists, I can say that most of the nudity I have seen has been of an erotic nature. Very few can separate themselves from the hard wiring God placed in us, and those who do, must fundamentally break themselves to succeed in this unfortunate pursuit.

The Real Problem
If you have not given up on me yet (I can be very long winded) I would like to offer one last observation.

Western culture in the last hundred years has shifted from being predominantly text-based to predominantly image based. With the rise of the media we now are subjected to constant visual, world view propaganda. For the men especially this shakes our foundations and shapes our perspective.

We now find ourselves so invested in media that we begin to miss the rest of the fullness of the life that God gave us in this world. There is so much else that we could be dwelling on and thinking about that it saddens me that so much time is wasted in trying to split hairs about how much baring of skin is acceptable in imagery that can only imitate the beauty of reality.

Do I still love art? Passionately. Do I still think the human form is the most beautiful part of creation? Absolutely, and I await with great anticipation the day that God allows me to explore and enjoy it in the blessing of its proper context, but I am going to trust his definition of the proper context.

87. Bekah said the following at 8:08 PM on Mar 18:

While artwork in the Renaissance ages may not have been considered offensive in it's day, we are not living in that age now. We are not living in India or Africa. Nudity and portrayals of sexual intercourse (outside of marriage and certain situations) are considered crude, demeaning, sinful and harmful to the public at large. Whether or not men lusted at the sight of a bare breast in 1491 (correct me if I am in the wrong time period) is irrelevant, men in 2009 DO. We are not, "To be a stumbling block" to our brothers and sisters (figuratively) and nudity and sexuality, as is evident daily, is.

Please realize I am not saying in every situation, this is a very general commentary.

88. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 11:25 PM on Mar 18:

Chance (#86),

Thank you for your *very* thoughtful and powerful comment. I hope that many people will read it, regardless of its length! Thank you for the time, thought, and care that you put into it!

The comments to this entry are closed.

External Links

Note: Links to external sites do not constitute blanket endorsement or complete agreement by Boundless or Focus on the Family with information or resources offered at or through those sites.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

GOOGLE THIS BLOG

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post

Nudity in Art
by Ted Slater on 03/12/2009 at 1:11 PM

Comments on several blog posts tell me that this is a hot topic: When and how is it appropriate to include nudity and portrayals of sexual intercourse in various forms of art, specifically film?

Perhaps the rightness or wrongness of viewing nude forms has to do with vocation: a husband's vocation to please his wife, for example, or a physician's vocation to care for his patients.

And perhaps the rightness or wrongness of viewing nude forms also has to do with the heart: viewing a woman lustfully is clearly wrong.

Perhaps Scripture can provide some clarity, some insights into this issue.

God again covers nakedness in Ezekiel 16:8. Jesus affirms clothing the unclothed in Matthew 25.

As with Isaiah, Jesus' humiliation was a display of God's holy judgment against sin. Like Lady Godiva, He sacrificed His honor for our sake. It had no entertainment value.

(Note, of course, that the nakedness of neither Isaiah nor Jesus was in any way sexual, but was heartbreakingly shameful and humiliating.)

Sex | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. NeedACatchyName said the following at 1:28 PM on Mar 12:

2. Adam said the following at 1:50 PM on Mar 12:

There is one place in Scripture where nudity was used as a positive example. In Hebrews 12, Paul speaks of throwing off everything that hinders.

If you look into the culture, races were run in the nude because clothing was considered a hindrance to running the fastest.

Now obviously Paul's primary point was not to advocate nudity. But using nudity as a positive example may shed some light on the issue.

3. Brian said the following at 1:53 PM on Mar 12:

I do not believe that any man can see a beautiful, naked woman without at least being tempted to lust. And if there is even temptation, we are to flee. (1 Cor 6:18) Period.

Flee v. 1. "To run away, as from trouble or danger"

4. pass the ammunition said the following at 2:06 PM on Mar 12:

5. Sara said the following at 2:13 PM on Mar 12:

"When we see someone who is without clothing, we are not to admire their form, but to cover them (Isaiah 58:7, Ezekiel 18:7, Genesis 9:22-27)."

What about a culture where the back of a woman's neck is considered extremely erogenous? It would be odd for their Christian missionaries to make other cultures' women cover their necks.

I guess the solution is that "without clothing" in those scripture passages you quote is an interpretable phrase: what's 'without clothing' in one place might be 'fully clothed' in another.

6. B.T.Carolus said the following at 2:20 PM on Mar 12:

7. Sara said the following at 2:21 PM on Mar 12:

8. Brian K said the following at 2:41 PM on Mar 12:

Brian:

* - for anyone who isn’t familiar, Tim Challies and anyone willing is going through Real Christianity which has started out as a great book.

9. DannieA said the following at 2:44 PM on Mar 12:

ummm I think there is a difference between sculptures/paintings and real life...entertainment nudity...

maybe i'm just not a normal girl, but any extended sex scene makes me want to go out and justify 'hooking up'...not that I do this, but MY mind wanders.

sculptures/paintings don't do that to me.

10. Cassandra said the following at 2:45 PM on Mar 12:

Adam #2

and Genesis 1:29 advocates smoking pot and Ecclesiastes 9:10, masturbation! ;)

11. Leeandra said the following at 3:01 PM on Mar 12:

Re: women's breasts as sexual.

St. Mary nursing the Infant Jesus was a popular subject of medieval and Renaissance painters.

Also, the virtue of Charity is traditionally personified in paintings and sculpture as a bare-breasted woman nursing two children at once.

12. Whitney said the following at 3:11 PM on Mar 12:

13. Michelle said the following at 3:20 PM on Mar 12:

All I can start to say to this piece of work is AMEN. "Abstain from ALL appearance of evil", the Bible says.

14. Ted Slater said the following at 3:27 PM on Mar 12:

Some of the comments are arguing that in some cultures men are not sexually provoked by certain female body parts.

Let's not avoid the real question at hand, which has to do with the relevance of nudity and portrayals of sexual intercourse in the media you and I ingest.

* * *

It is concerning that some people are so desperate to find exceptions that they overlook the general principles here.

15. Ted Slater said the following at 3:53 PM on Mar 12:

B.T.Carolus -- you wrote that "anyone who visits the Vatican knows the difference between the Renaissance paintings of nudes inside, and the semi-pornographic billboards outside."

Perhaps some of Michelangelo's "surly and crude behavior" (that was his reputation) was coming through in his artwork.

16. Brian said the following at 4:06 PM on Mar 12:

Whitney (#12)

17. Lucy G. said the following at 4:11 PM on Mar 12:

18. Lucy G. said the following at 4:21 PM on Mar 12:

Ted,

Nudity in medieval and renaissance art is more artistic convention than pornography. It's not there to be crude--it give particular meaning to a work.

19. Lucy G. said the following at 4:32 PM on Mar 12:

In conclusion, we don't need to be peeking into anyone's bedroom, fictional or real.

This discussion reminds me that Christian director Scott Derrickson is supposed to be making a film adaptation of "Paradise Lost." I wonder how nudity will be handled in that film. Thoughts?

20. pass the ammunition said the following at 4:45 PM on Mar 12:

And as a person whose family is from one of those uncivilized irrelevant countries, I'll try not to be offended.

21. Ted Slater said the following at 5:18 PM on Mar 12:

Is it coincidence that all the "nudity isn't bad" or "other cultures/centuries don't have a problem with nudity" comments are ... from women?

Perhaps you don't understand how the unclothed female body affects men, specifically (for lack of a better term, "pass the ammunition") those from technologically "modern/civilized" countries.

You can speak of "other countries" or "other cultures" or "other centuries," but here-and-now this is an issue of concern for most men.

22. Lana said the following at 5:40 PM on Mar 12:

Titus 1:15
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.

23. composer girl said the following at 5:58 PM on Mar 12:

24. IMO said the following at 6:11 PM on Mar 12:

25. Ryan said the following at 6:33 PM on Mar 12:

Ted--

Let's look at another art form (along the same lines of Renaissance art):

What if I'm an art student and a required part of my coursework is to draw a nude or several nudes? How might you entreat me to approach that situation?

Should I, or anyone else having this conversation, be concerned if we aren't responding to the body God designed in the way He intended? (Or is it the gift of celibacy???)

26. pass the ammunition said the following at 7:05 PM on Mar 12:

Ted: I actually agree with much of what you said and was just raising another point in my original post and did not mean to attack.

27. Michael said the following at 7:06 PM on Mar 12:

Ted;

Keep up the great work!

28. Kate (who is waiting to hear from law schools) said the following at 7:16 PM on Mar 12:

Ok. I majored in art history. Art is my thing, I go to the museum for fun. I have a mental list of artists who I am going to collect with the piles of money I make from being a lawyer.

I'll close with a fun art history challenge- Daniele da Volterra, who is he and why does this debate make me think of him? Start your Wikipedias!

29. Catherine said the following at 8:24 PM on Mar 12:

30. Catherine said the following at 8:27 PM on Mar 12:

31. Anthony said the following at 8:42 PM on Mar 12:

Regarding No. 15:

I highly doubt that what's going on in that portion of the chapel is oral sex, Ted. Come on. Be serious. I envy the Europeans who have largely made nudity a non-issue. People need to get over it.

The way this discussion is going, I'm imagining far too many evangelical homes adorned with Thomas Kinkade prints. God save us. That man raped art.

32. Danielle said the following at 9:10 PM on Mar 12:

Thanks for bringing up this good question. My answer kind of turned into a whole blog post of its own. I'll paste a snippet here:

Do not, for the sake of [art], destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he [views] (Romans 14:20).

There will be nudity in art as long as there is art. But should Christians be creating it? These Scriptures convince me that the answer is no.

33. Texas Craig said the following at 10:10 PM on Mar 12:

34. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 11:17 PM on Mar 12:

35. The G said the following at 1:30 AM on Mar 13:

But here's this:

36. The G said the following at 1:47 AM on Mar 13:

37. Lynda said the following at 2:09 AM on Mar 13:

Interesting comments... I'd like to speak to the "other cultures" argument.

The sexuality of women's breasts is a delight both to husband and wife. (I speak as a married woman.) The culture that denies this aspect of God's gift suffers a great loss.

Sin always brings about loss.

38. Jordan C from Canada said the following at 2:27 AM on Mar 13:

I understand and appreciate that in secular art and fiction, sex between characters will occur and it can show their bond, etc.

But I never understood directors' desire to actually SHOW it. It's kind of annoying. Even before I took my faith, and subsequently what I viewed, seriously, I fast-forwarded through it.

39. Elizabeth H. said the following at 6:08 AM on Mar 13:

I took an art class once and was a little worried about the nude models. But I found that it didn't cause any temptation for me. It was just a collection of objects to draw.

You know what tempts you, and you should take steps to avoid whatever triggers it.

As for others, I wouldn't want to tempt a brother or sister, so if nude art did that for them, I would make an attempt to avoid displaying such images.

40. Jonathan said the following at 8:00 AM on Mar 13:

41. Matt from DC said the following at 8:21 AM on Mar 13:

Let us not forget Joseph's nakedness. He fled from sexual immortality with such force that she tore his clothes off. Thoughts?

Does the vocation of "artist" grant someone the same authority that husbands or physicians may have to view an unclothed woman?
I do not think so.

Does their vocation permit them to instruct unmarried couples to engage in sexual behavior?
No way. No one's vocation has the power to override the Word of God.

42. Texas Craig said the following at 8:47 AM on Mar 13:

Composer Girl (#23):

43. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:03 AM on Mar 13:

composer girl (#23),
its possible to find fine art out there that does not display nudity.

One of my favorite reliefs in Ancient Roman art is fully clothed. I think its the human mother of Remus and Romulus with the twins playing around her.

There are other ways to practice drawing proportions, to! Biology Anatomy books for drawing muscles, comes to mind.

You really don't need nudity to be a good artist or culturally relevant or sophisticated.

44. Dr. Ransom said the following at 9:44 AM on Mar 13:

But let's consider this also from the perspective of making "art," such as a movie, not just viewing it.

And I will be more aggressive than usual in trying to get my questions actually answered by the "sex acts onscreen have artistic merit" proponents who've posted here.

For all you people who think watching naked people and portrayals of sex is acceptable, and not much different from watching portrayals of violence:

Question 1: In movies with violent scenes, are the movie actors actually conducting real acts of violence, such as shooting, stabbing, torturing?
Question 2: In movies with nudity or sex scenes, are the movie actors actually appearing naked, touching other actors in private areas or acting out sex scenes?
Question 3: Would you appraise the "artistic merit" of a movie, if its actors were actually being shot at, stabbed or injured for the sake of the movie?
Question 4: If not, then why would you appraise the "artistic merit" of a movie when actors are really unclothed and acting out sex scenes?

(Unlike ways to simulate or act out violence, do actors somehow have any other method of directly portraying nudity and lewd acts onscreen without actually being naked and doing lewd acts?)
Question 5: If you as a Christian were also an actor, would you sincerely believe God would be glorified and His standards of purity upheld if you participated in acted-out representations of violence, for a movie with a storyline that ultimately upheld a Biblical worldview and concepts of good versus evil?
Question 6: Would you, as a Christian actor, sincerely believe God would be glorified if you took off your clothes and exposed yourself for a movie scene, or engaged in private touching or lewd acts with a co-star? What about your spouse? Boyfriend or girlfriend? Your mother? Your sister?

Finally ...

Question 7: In the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21), could films be made for God's glory that portray good versus evil and the ensuing violence that once marked the rebellious Old Earth?

Would such films also include representations of nudity -- could glorified saints actually take off their clothes or portray acts of lewd behavior for the sake of "art," accuracy or "authenticity"?