Art student taking figure drawing

[FllMtl Novelist]

I have a feeling this should be painfully obvious (wouldn't be the first time I sincerely asked a stupid question), but because I like clarity I'm going to ask:

What exactly is the different between "artistic" nudity and "sexual" nudity?

Which is which, and how do you know? I mean, is there this list of poses somewhere that are categorized as 'sexual' and everything else is 'artistic', or what?

(Of course if that's an inappropriate question, my apologies. I don't want to cause any problems.)

[ChristianKitsune]

I think the difference is the POSE and what is being shown. Of course it depends on the sensitivity of the artist.

It's really obvious when people are trying to be pornographic and when they are just being innocent and are just there for the money/to be drawn to help artists learn the anatomy.

[Atria35]

I have a feeling this should be painfully obvious (wouldn't be the first time I sincerely asked a stupid question), but because I like clarity I'm going to ask:

What exactly is the different between "artistic" nudity and "sexual" nudity?

Which is which, and how do you know? I mean, is there this list of poses somewhere that are categorized as 'sexual' and everything else is 'artistic', or what?

(Of course if that's an inappropriate question, my apologies. I don't want to cause any problems.)

My defenitions and how I categorize are like this:

Sexual- the art is purposely meant to evoke sexual feelings within another.

Artistic- It's not meant to evoke those feelings within another. It may symbolize something (innocence, purity), or it may be how the artist chooses to portray somebody, but there is no sexual intent behind it.

[Nate]

My only problem when it comes to nude drawing classes is that my parents don't like it...

Well, by the time you'd be able to take a class like that, you'd be in college and a legal adult so your parents wouldn't really have much of a say in it. :p

[chibiphonebooth]

I have a feeling this should be painfully obvious (wouldn't be the first time I sincerely asked a stupid question), but because I like clarity I'm going to ask:

What exactly is the different between "artistic" nudity and "sexual" nudity?

Which is which, and how do you know? I mean, is there this list of poses somewhere that are categorized as 'sexual' and everything else is 'artistic', or what?

(Of course if that's an inappropriate question, my apologies. I don't want to cause any problems.)

like CK said, i think it's more about the pose of the person. Sexual nudity is usually supposed to evoke sexual feelings. (excuse me if i'm getting too graphic) the poses usually would probably be more towards poses you'd have during sex.

Artistic nudity it the the human form, and it's hard to pinpoint all poses that fall under this category, but some examples: sitting in a chair, standing normally, brushing their hair, holding flowers, etc.

[Okami]

Let me just say that I don't understand people who find all nudity to be sexual. Sometimes a nude body is just a nude body.

I am one of those people. From my prospective, I understand that there is a difference between artistic and sexual nudity. I have dabbled with art, and for a while really wanted to be a graphic's designer or artist of some kind. I have gone to art museums such as the DIA (Detroit Institute of Art) and enjoyed the beauty of the whole experience.

However, despite my knowledge of artistic beauty and appreciation of the human body, there is something within me that cannot seperate nudity from sexuality. Due to my abuse of pornography through my teen years, nudity still bears a lot of the weight of said abuse. Even if it is innocent and pure, my mind is able to grossly pervert something meant to be beautiful. It is a constant struggle to seperate the two. Michaelangelo's David has been brought up in this thread. I can't stand to look at images of him; it's been used time and again in some of my classes and it brings up a powerful lust factor within me.

As far as nude figure drawing goes, because of this issue of mine, I would not be able to do it. It's one of those issues that's neither 'right' nor 'wrong,' but moreso depends on the individual. Despite all that's been said here, about details not being the focus so much as the actual poses and actions...I psychologically do not handle any form of nudity well (including my own figure) because for me, it all relates back to being pornographic. I strive to overcome, and I hope one day I can truly appreciate the human form, instead of the intensity I feel otherwise.

(I've been trying to get my thoughts together through the whole of watching this thread. I think that's all I can come up with before my battery dies.)

[FllMtl Novelist]

I think the difference is the POSE and what is being shown. Of course it depends on the sensitivity of the artist.

It's really obvious when people are trying to be pornographic and when they are just being innocent and are just there for the money/to be drawn to help artists learn the anatomy.

My defenitions and how I categorize are like this:

Sexual- the art is purposely meant to evoke sexual feelings within another.

Artistic- It's not meant to evoke those feelings within another. It may symbolize something (innocence, purity), or it may be how the artist chooses to portray somebody, but there is no sexual intent behind it.

like CK said, i think it's more about the pose of the person. Sexual nudity is usually supposed to evoke sexual feelings. (excuse me if i'm getting too graphic) the poses usually would probably be more towards poses you'd have during sex.

Artistic nudity it the the human form, and it's hard to pinpoint all poses that fall under this category, but some examples: sitting in a chair, standing normally, brushing their hair, holding flowers, etc.

Okay, thanks for all your answers, guys! I've never consciously looked at porn, so I had no idea (having nothing to compare). ^^; Thanks again!

[USSRGirl]

I agree with Okami. Personally, I think for most people nude art or drawings shouldn't be a big deal, but I can see where the figure drawing could be uncomfortable. I'm not an art student, but I don't think the OP was saying it was wrong per se - seemed like a lot of people kinda started making snarky comments about how nudity isn't a sin/wrong. That's true, but I don't really think that was what she was getting at. It isn't all that helpful to say God created our beautiful bodies and Adama and Eve were nekked because we are sinful creatures now and like Oki said our minds pervert what should be viewed as clean and beautiful. There's no need to deny it if you feel uncomfortable about something like even if it isn't a lust thing for you - that's just human nature. It's not wrong and we can't just flip on a switch that suddenly goes from "omg nekked person HALP!" to "my what beautiful art."

I'm not an art student and personally I agree with what has been said regarding artistic nudity - classical portraits and drawings/sculptures whatever don't bother me. I think they're beautiful and I love art (I work at an art gallery so I'd better - I see this stuff everyday XD). But there's a big difference between that and actually having to draw a live nude model - I'd be nervous about that just because I'm a shy dork about that kinda thing. The closest I've dealt with is biology related images and an anthropology video of a tribe that went around naked.

The vid was during my first year of college and the teacher didn't give any warning (it was an English class), so some of the students - myself included - were a little surprised when we first saw it, but honestly I got over it in the first few seconds. It ended up being a really interesting film and the idea of how similar these people were to us with their family customs and what was pretty cool. I know that's not the same as live, but I do see what the others are getting at in that it might be uncomfortable at first, but you quickly get over it and like someone said - nekked people are pretty ugly, haha. XD Lust was the farthest thing from my mind with that vid. I think you will find that it isn't as bad as you think.

I second talking to the professor first too, not just to try and make him accomodate you, but tell him your concerns and he may be able to give you some insight on what to expect and you'll feel more comfortable knowing the teacher.

That said; ultimately, it's up to you and what you feel okay with both as a Christian and a person. There's nothing wrong with being uncomfortable with it, granted you'd either have to work around it somehow or change majors, but I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. Like I said, it wouldn't really bother me personally, but neither would I ask someone I knew wasn't comfortable with the whole deal to take my word for it if they felt convicted against it for whatever reason. I'm reminded of the verse where Paul talks about eating meat sacrificed to idols - for some it's just foodz, for others it's a stumbling block. The thing itself is neutral - it's not wrong in of itself, but if a fellow Christian feels its inappropriate for them, who are we to judge?

I know that probably wasn't the intent, but it seemed that some people were trying to say her reasons were invalid or stupid for not wanting to take the class. That "nudity in of itself isn't a sin" is true, but she's also not wrong or theologically incorrect for not wanting to take figure drawing. It's not really a theology issue - it's a personal tolerance/standard one. It like she's saying students who do take figure drawing are going to hell. :p What works for one person may not be comfortable for another just like seeing a scary movie or anything else. No need to say either individual is in the wrong.

[Rusty Claymore]

It's taking all I got not to pull out the big guns, so I'll just wave my side arm a bit.
I'd start Biblical, but this isn't a TD thread, and since I don't have all the nitty-gritty details on renisaunce art(having always found it distasteful, even in the rare occasion when clothes are involved *XD*) I will merely bring up a fable about Michealangello which I heard while listening to Ravi Zacharias.

Michaelangello(who will now be referred to as 'mich' for time saving purposes) had decided to get into the whole nude thing. (If you can't tell already, this isn't Ravi's version, but mine. XP) When Mich's teacher heard about it, he was rather taken aback and approached Mich on why he started. Mich said that he had begun painting nudes because he wanted to see people as God sees them. Mich's teacher looked at him and replied, "But Mich, you are not God!"
Reguardless, as I have seen in this thread, bathing suits do not detract from the artistic study of the human body. There is no reason for nudity in art, whether the study or practice of it. Unless of course your particular branch of art focuses on reproductive organs.

[Radical Dreamer]

There is no reason for nudity in art, whether the study or practice of it. Unless of course your particular branch of art focuses on reproductive organs.

I would have to disagree with this. There can be perfectly good reasons, symbolic or otherwise, for portraying nudity in a piece of art. And the reason doesn't need to have anything to do with "reproductive organs." It's fine if something makes you personally uncomfortable, but to say there's absolutely no reason for it is a bit of a stretch, I think.

[Nate]

I have to weigh in with Okami.

You're not weighing in with Okami, you're actually saying the opposite of what she said. I'll quote what she said:

From my prospective, I understand that there is a difference between artistic and sexual nudity.

Okami said that she is aware there is a place for nudity in art and she acknowledges that, but says her own personal opinions and experiences mean she is not comfortable around even non-sexual nudity. This is completely different from your statement that nudity has no place in art.

[USSRGirl]

Eh... so you'd never go to the Louvre or dozens of other famous art galleries, miss out on some of the greatest acclaimed pieces of all time, not to mention classical Christian works because you think 'nudity has no place in art?'

I strongly disagree - we wouldn't have a tenth of the beautiful, historical, and spiritual/thought envoking pieces we have if that were true.

I guess to clarify my own post so it doesn't get misunderstood; I personally think taking offense to nude statues/art/drawings is pretty absurd. Depends on what it is, but let's face it - you don't get Playboy magazine in any reputable art gallery for gosh sakes! I don't know anyone who looks at a naked Victorian style old woman portrait and goes "sexy."

All I was saying was that there's nothing wrong with being nervous about live nude drawings. Granted, there is no real way to get around it as an art major, but if you feel that it isn't right for you take a different major or go to a Christian university where they cover the models up. Just saying what's right for one person might not be right for another.

BUT... saying there's no place for nudity in art is another story. That's absurd. I could think of so many things to say to that, but I don't really wanna get into it... I mean, the Sistine Chapel is sinful then? Really?

I'd only agree that you should do as you feel best in any personal matter - but I don't think there is anything theologically wrong with artistic nudity. Just the opposite, a lot of these paintings depict purity and God's creation - they've inspired Christians for centuries and being a big fan of art myself, I gotta say I find your opinion a bit uninformed, good sir.

[Rusty Claymore]

You're not weighing in with Okami, you're actually saying the opposite of what she said.

... Huh, I can't even remember why I typed that. I think that was pre edits. Anyways, it's fixed now, thanks for pointing that out.

I would have to disagree with this. There can be perfectly good reasons, symbolic or otherwise, for portraying nudity in a piece of art. And the reason doesn't need to have anything to do with "reproductive organs." It's fine if something makes you personally uncomfortable, but to say there's absolutely no reason for it is a bit of a stretch, I think.

Hmmm... Do you mean implied nudity? Cause I am talking about nudity like in Venus and Davide, where it all hangs out. In that case, I do stand with an absolute. However, I get the feeling you do not mean implied.

I gotta say I find your opinion a bit uninformed, good sir.

Frankly, I don't understand you. I see no where in the Bible that nakedness is a sign of purity. Perhaps instead someone can explain clearly why nudity is so vital to art? I find nothing pure or spiritual about my, nor anyone else's, privates. If I am, as you say, uninformed, then enlighten me. Probably in PM, since I don't want to turn this into a debate.

[Htom Sirveaux]

I see no where in the Bible that nakedness is a sign of purity.

Uh . . . Genesis? Adam and Eve? Didn't wear aught but smiles? Ate the forbidden fruit, discovered shame, covered themselves up? Any of this sound familiar? I'm pretty sure somewhere, some artist did a depiction of Adam and/or Eve pre-fruit.

[Radical Dreamer]

Hmmm... Do you mean implied nudity? Cause I am talking about nudity like in Venus and Davide, where it all hangs out. In that case, I do stand with an absolute. However, I get the feeling you do not mean implied.

Nope, I don't. It CAN be implied, but I see nothing wrong with it whether it's implied or not. Having "it all hang out" simply isn't the point of artistic nudity. Again, whether or not it makes you feel uncomfortable is one thing, but calling your opinion on artistic nudity "absolute" just means you aren't understanding the art form. XD

[USSRGirl]

Honestly, Rusty, I find your opinion on the matter the most crass and offensive of all. You're basically saying the human body is only a collection of reproductive organs - by saying there's nothing pure or spiritual about anyone's "privates" sounds like something a 6th grader would say at an art museum field trip. I mean, geez... there is NOTHING wrong with depicting something God made. God created our bodies - every part of our bodies - and we are his perfected, pure, and beautiful creation. As has been mentioned, Adam and Eve ring any bells? I see no need to be so vulgar and take artistic nude forms down to the lowest common denominator like that. It isn't the art that's sexually objectifying (sp?) the subject, it's you and your interpretations of it. There are many meanings behind artistically depicting a human being in their natural state (hey, we weren't born with clothes, sorry)... so many I don't really even wanna get into it in this thread.

It is also implied in scripture we'll probably all be nekky again in heaven since ya know... Adam and Eve were fine with it. Whether or not we will doesn't really matter - point is, God made our beautiful bodies. It's through sin that we have shame and knowledge of lust. Personally, I think disdaining or being offended by the human body as if it were a sin of itself is far more wrong than depicting Adam and Eve pre-sin. O__o;; That's a very warped and bad theology to have IMO - sorry, the human body is not just a giant reproductive organ. That is by far the strangest opinion I've heard in a long time. I'm a little put off that you seem to see no other value in our God given bodies beyond someone drawing privates... I mean, honestly... that's quite immature and silly.

[goldenspines]

Okay guys, this is not in TD, and out of respect for the OP, I'm not going to move it there. If you wish to give Beau anymore encouragement and advice, please send her a PM about it.
You all should know better to keep things out of the area of Theology in General. Locked.