What To Do With Bad Images In Mangas?

[Tsukuyomi]

Lol, I'm sorry, but that just cracks me up XDD

[Prince Asbel]

My main point here is that the effect does not define the cause. What I mean is, just because you and others have a problem with nudity doesn't mean artistic nudity is evil or that Renaissance artists were "wrong" for drawing it, as you seemed to imply. To use an example, just because people use computers to look at pornography doesn't mean computers are evil, and it doesn't mean the people who made the computers were wrong to do so. It's a bit of a stretch of an analogy, but I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make.

I get your point. *Smacks forehead* Now I know what I'm doing wrong. Think of it like this. Sometimes a person does something wrong without intending to. I would not punish the person for doing what they did, but I would tell them not to do it again. That's the meaning behind my saying michaelangelo and co. were wrong in drawing such pictures. That's what I'd say to a brother or sister of mine unless they drew it for their own personal viewing. I think that's the only case where it would be permitted unless they found a fellow artist who were the same as they were on the subject.

Oh, come on! XD Ha ha ha, that is actually kind of funny.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

And it still doesn't mean that the Rennaissance artists were wrong for painting those things. Those paintings (many of the most famous of which appeared in churches) were celebrations of God's creation, not invitations to lewdness.

[Raiden no Kishi]

I get your point. *Smacks forehead* Now I know what I'm doing wrong. Think of it like this. Sometimes a person does something wrong without intending to. I would not punish the person for doing what they did, but I would tell them not to do it again. That's the meaning behind my saying michaelangelo and co. were wrong in drawing such pictures. That's what I'd say to a brother or sister of mine unless they drew it for their own personal viewing. I think that's the only case where it would be permitted unless they found a fellow artist who were the same as they were on the subject.

The problem is that you are assuming as axiomatic that nudity in art is inherently wrong. You have yet to evidence this assertion. All you've done is impose the consequences of your experience (that all nudity is problematic) on others, assuming that everyone is the same way. That's not fair to those of us for whom some nudity (or all nudity) is not problematic.

And to Fish's pic, I offer the obligatory "Bow chicka bow wow".

.rai//

[Etoh*the*Greato]

And to Fish's pic, I offer the obligatory "Bow chicka bow wow".

.rai//

To Fish's pic I would like to add that...

"THE CHEAT IS GROUNDED! We had that lightswitch installed so you could turn the light ON and OFF. Not so you could throw LIGHTSWITCH RAVES!"

[Debitt]

I would not punish the person for doing what they did, but I would tell them not to do it again. That's the meaning behind my saying michaelangelo and co. were wrong in drawing such pictures.

There are a couple fallacies in your assertion.

I'll throw the first, more petty one out there and get it out of the way: Michelangelo is dead -- telling him to stop it now would be silly, since he's "stopped" for a few hundred years.

The second is that here you are assuming that because you find nudity problematic, then everyone should halt the creation of nude art simply because you find them to be troubling. It is one thing to apply this to happen in close company -- if I was with friends, they were doing [x] that I found troubling, then I would hope they'd take my concerns into at least vague consideration, and either stop [x] troubling activity, or take the time to talk things out with me.

That's fine. That's called compromising, respecting a friend's wishes, looking out for a sibling in Christ. Things integral to interpersonal relationships. No problem there.

What happens when you try to impose this on people you don't know, and have no preexisting relationship with? Then you're assuming that your needs take precedence over (for example) the creative desires of an artist who doesn't know you, and didn't have any intention to make you stumble in the first place. Why should they be obligated to make sure that their work is universally inoffensive to EVERYONE'S convictions? It's like -- I like to listen to music. I like rock music, especially rock music that *gasp* isn't Christian. Should I not be allowed to play my music simply because some feel that secular music causes them to stumble?

[chibiphonebooth]

What happens when you try to impose this on people you don't know, and have no preexisting relationship with? Then you're assuming that your needs take precedence over (for example) the creative desires of an artist who doesn't know you, and didn't have any intention to make you stumble in the first place. Why should they be obligated to make sure that their work is universally inoffensive to EVERYONE'S convictions? It's like -- I like to listen to music. I like rock music, especially rock music that *gasp* isn't Christian. Should I not be allowed to play my music simply because some feel that secular music causes them to stumble?

agreed. It would be pretty much impossible for Michaelangelo to check with everyone everywhere to make sure his art isn't offending anyone. XD

and plus, I doubt Michaelangelo was drawing it intentionally and giggling to himself going, 'and now i'm going to make everyone stumble cause i'm drawing this nude person! wahahahhaahahahha! Everyone will be mad at me, but I'll be dead soon! so there is nothing they can do! wahhahahahah!" XD

[Syreth]

Why should they be obligated to make sure that their work is universally inoffensive to EVERYONE'S convictions?

Point taken, but I think most of us would agree that there is indeed a line that should not be crossed in art containing nudity, such as with pornography. Considering that, where is the line and how do artists avoid crossing it?

[ShiroiHikari]

I would think that the line between porn and art would be quite obvious, but that's just me.

[Radical Dreamer]

I get your point. *Smacks forehead* Now I know what I'm doing wrong. Think of it like this. Sometimes a person does something wrong without intending to. I would not punish the person for doing what they did, but I would tell them not to do it again. That's the meaning behind my saying michaelangelo and co. were wrong in drawing such pictures. That's what I'd say to a brother or sister of mine unless they drew it for their own personal viewing. I think that's the only case where it would be permitted unless they found a fellow artist who were the same as they were on the subject.

As others have graciously pointed out, it's not that Michaelangelo et al. were wrong for drawing artistic nudes. It wasn't something they did without realizing it. As Etoh mentioned earlier, it was more a celebration of God's creation than it was a stumbling block, and the only reason some see it this way is because of our culture's ideas on nudity and sexuality. Therefore, no, Michaelangelo was not "unintentionally wrong]That's fine. That's called compromising, respecting a friend's wishes, looking out for a sibling in Christ. Things integral to interpersonal relationships. No problem there.

What happens when you try to impose this on people you don't know, and have no preexisting relationship with? Then you're assuming that your needs take precedence over (for example) the creative desires of an artist who doesn't know you, and didn't have any intention to make you stumble in the first place. Why should they be obligated to make sure that their work is universally inoffensive to EVERYONE'S convictions? It's like -- I like to listen to music. I like rock music, especially rock music that *gasp* isn't Christian. Should I not be allowed to play my music simply because some feel that secular music causes them to stumble?[/QUOTE]


Quoted for truth. If something doesn't cause you to stumble, don't worry about it, but if it causes your friend to stumble, don't involve your friend in that action to help keep them from stumbling. However, if it's only involving the general public, that's something you have no control over, and that's when the individual member of the public needs to decide whether or not something will cause them to stumble.

Point taken, but I think most of us would agree that there is indeed a line that should not be crossed in art containing nudity, such as with pornography. Considering that, where is the line and how do artists avoid crossing it?

I think that, to a point, that comes down to what one can or cannot personally handle, and this is where we need to use discretion. I think it comes down to the artist's intent--was it meant to cause someone to lust, or was it meant to portray God's creation/anatomy/etc.? Honestly, I think it should be fairly simple to gauge the artist's intent by the actual picture itself, and whether or not the original intent is overridden with a personal reaction is up to the viewer. If the original intent is twisted by the viewer and it causes him to stumble, then that's where one has to decide to stay away from it, rather than continue to allow it to be a stumbling block.

[Prince Asbel]

The problem is that you are assuming as axiomatic that nudity in art is inherently wrong. You have yet to evidence this assertion. All you've done is impose the consequences of your experience (that all nudity is problematic) on others, assuming that everyone is the same way. That's not fair to those of us for whom some nudity (or all nudity) is not problematic.

You should read what I said more clearly. I did not say nudity is inherently wrong, and I didn't assume it as axiomatic. At the risk of making this theological (This is the only answer I have), from the biblical command that we are not permitted to be nude ourselves, I can't see how drawing nude pictures for public viewing is any different. Sure, a person may want to walk around nude for the purpose of showing off the beauty of the human body, but anyone knows that's not permitted in the Bible. So I can't see how anyone can argue a difference between that and drawing nude images for public viewing.

There are a couple fallacies in your assertion.

I'll throw the first, more petty one out there and get it out of the way: Michelangelo is dead -- telling him to stop it now would be silly, since he's "stopped" for a few hundred years.

Golly, ah never taught uh dat!

The second is that here you are assuming that because you find nudity problematic, then everyone should halt the creation of nude art simply because you find them to be troubling.

No, I didn't. Read the rest of my post that you quoted. If an artist has pure desires in drawing nude art to be looked at exclusively by himself/herself or someone else like them, I would find that acceptable. The problem has to do with public viewing, not private viewing.

What happens when you try to impose this on people you don't know, and have no preexisting relationship with? Then you're assuming that your needs take precedence over (for example) the creative desires of an artist who doesn't know you, and didn't have any intention to make you stumble in the first place. Why should they be obligated to make sure that their work is universally inoffensive to EVERYONE'S convictions?

From the standpoint that the person I'm speaking to is a brother or sister in Christ, it is a responsibility of mine to show them (in a Christian manner) that such behavior is wrong. If their behavior does indeed violate the biblical standard of modesty (see my reply to Raiden no kishi), then it isn't just a matter of personal needs. First and foremost it's a matter of violating God's commandment. That takes precedence over everything.

To answer your last question, no. I wouldn't say that. But this isn't a matter of convictions only. It's a combination of that and obeying God's law. Keep reading, I address this.

It's like -- I like to listen to music. I like rock music, especially rock music that *gasp* isn't Christian. Should I not be allowed to play my music simply because some feel that secular music causes them to stumble?

Chuckles* Dude, I know what you mean. I get that every now and then too. But the connection is wrong. Jesus' own standard of keeping people from going against their conscience is not violated by doing what's permitted regardless of someone else's biblical ignorance.

I'll be a bit more specific. Jesus ate meat, knowing full well that some people have convictions against eating meat. The thing is that it IS permissible to eat meat, and it was permissible for Christ to do that regardless of vegetarians who are ignorant of it BEING permissible. There's no higher standard of righteousness than Christ's, so that's why we all can eat meat and why you and I can listen to rock music.

In conclusion, listening to rock music isn't forbidden in the Bible. Drawing nudity for public viewing is, and there's where the difference lies. I hope I was clear in my meaning.

To Radical Dreamer: I think I've answered the things you said in post #100, but you posted while I was busy writing this.

[mechana2015]

At the risk of making this theological (This is the only answer I have), from the biblical command that we are not permitted to be nude ourselves, I can't see how drawing nude pictures for public viewing is any different. Sure, a person may want to walk around nude for the purpose of showing off the beauty of the human body, but anyone knows that's not permitted in the Bible. So I can't see how anyone can argue a difference between that and drawing nude images for public viewing.

What?
I respectfully ask for a reference as to where that command crops up in the Bible, and the context thereof, just for the sake of education and understanding, not debate. If I take issue I will be sure to take it to PM, and urge all others to do the same.

[Nate]

I would think that the line between porn and art would be quite obvious, but that's just me.

Indeed.

the biblical command that we are not permitted to be nude ourselves

Really? Wow. Must be kinda hard to shower or change underwear then. Or reproduce.

Oh wait there is no commandment like that.

Dude

Despite the username, Debitt is female.

So I can't see how anyone can argue a difference between that and drawing nude images for public viewing.

In the Sistine Chapel, which is a church by the way (hence the term "chapel") there is a fantastic painting by Michelangelo called "The Creation of Adam" depicting God creating Adam in the Garden of Eden. Since Adam was naked when he was created, and felt no shame, in the same way Adam is naked in the painting. In the church.

We certainly CAN argue a difference between walking around town naked and a painting by a fantastic artist that shows the creation of humanity by God Himself.

[Syreth]

So, if I could play the devil's advocate for a moment, what I understand is that a lot of us are saying that nudity is pretty much always okay in art unless it makes someone stumble. BUT if that nudity involves sex, then it becomes pornographic. To me, that seems to be a rather weak progression of logic. Sex is not evil any more than nudity is. And nudity can be sexual without the act of sex.

So again, we have a fuzzy line that we are trying to define. Can a well-meaning artist with no intent to make others stumble cross the line? Or do intentions always justify the action when it comes to nudity in art? Or do people who are stumbled by nudity just have a weak conscience, and artists shouldn't necessarily consider them in what they produce?

[ShiroiHikari]

Well, I, for one, don't see the flaw in the logic at all. I mean, most people are turned on by arousing images, so that's probably a no-no, right? I don't really see what's to argue about there.

[Nate]

So, if I could play the devil's advocate for a moment, what I understand is that a lot of us are saying that nudity is pretty much always okay in art unless it makes someone stumble.

I can't speak for others, but I'm certainly not saying that. For example, I would classify the photos in Playboy as artistic, but I don't think that they'd be okay for a Christian to look at.

BUT if that nudity involves sex, then it becomes pornographic.

That is actually the defining line between nudity and pornography, is the depiction of sex. Unless sex is present, it cannot be pornography. This of course does not address whether pornography is in and of itself artistic, which would cause a severe debate in this thread, so let's avoid going down that road.

Sex is not evil any more than nudity is. And nudity can be sexual without the act of sex.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Can a well-meaning artist with no intent to make others stumble cross the line?

It depends on how you define "the line," which is different for every person. However I would say that if their intent is not to be sexual, that it would not be wrong on their part. How someone else interprets the art is of course important, but I don't think we can blame the artist in that situation.

Or do intentions always justify the action when it comes to nudity in art?

I don't think they justify it completely, however what the artist intends is extremely important and MUST be taken into consideration. Using again the examples of Michelangelo's "The Creation of Adam" and his statue of David, his intent was obviously NOT to make people lust. However, if someone gets turned on by these works of art, for whatever reason, they should avoid looking at them. BUT, that is not an excuse for that person to say "This makes me lust therefore we should paint fig leaves on Adam!"

Some art is meant to inspire lust, and that's a whole different story, but the fact is it's a difference in culture where nudity was not always sexual in the older days.

Or do people who are stumbled by nudity just have a weak conscience, and artists shouldn't necessarily consider them in what they produce?

I wouldn't say they have a weak conscience, but I do agree artists should not be restricted by how others should view their work. Art is an expression of a person's soul, and we have no right to tell artists what they can and cannot do in their art.

For example, ChristianKitsune has a particular art piece on display here that I won't mention in detail (as per the rules) but I find it to be slightly offensive to my beliefs. HOWEVER, she is perfectly free to express her beliefs in her art, and in fact, I praise her for doing so. It would be rude and disrespectful of me to say "I have a problem with you doing this in your art so don't do it." Her art is an expression of herself, not of me, you, or anybody else.

And if she reads this thread sorry for using you as an example CK. You're the first person I thought of. XD;;

[Etoh*the*Greato]

So again, we have a fuzzy line that we are trying to define. Can a well-meaning artist with no intent to make others stumble cross the line? Or do intentions always justify the action when it comes to nudity in art? Or do people who are stumbled by nudity just have a weak conscience, and artists shouldn't necessarily consider them in what they produce?

This is where discretion on the part of the viewer is involved. If the well meaning artist truly is well meaning, and it's only viewed poorly by a portion of the populace (as opposed to, you know, everyone) then it is up to that population to decide whether or not to view the material. Don't be shocked that you've burnt yourself when you spill hot coffee on your lap, and please don't sue McDonald's (although, I'm told that evidently works. Heh).
As a general direction (this is pointed towards no one, I swear), don't be a dink. Don't displace blame. If you are getting ready to view something that you know might cause trouble, then please PLEASE don't view it. Your personal issues may not necessarily be your fault, but they are your issues. Be responsible.

[Tsukuyomi]

If you really think of it, anyone can view anything as "lustful" u_u It depends on how that person wants to perceive it don't you think? For example, a man or woman can take one glance at another person and lust over them even if they are fully clothed with nothing being revealed. What then?

I recall reading a manga with a very romantic scene in it. The figures were shadowed out, but I found the scene very beautiful ^__^ Did it cause me to lust? I can honestly sa,"No, it didn't." I found it very touching and moving, because the two characters loved one another deeply ^__^

Off topic? Yes, but it goes to show you it's all in the mind who's perceiving it ^^

[uc pseudonym]

I think we should just produce two versions of everything: the clean one and the dirty one. For example, the synopsis of the clean edition of Berserk would go like this:

Gutts is a guy who carries a large metal sword which he uses to [bonk mean people] because he was traumatized as a child when his foster father [made fun of him]. He meets a group of mercenaries lead by a man named Griffith and joins them. In the group is a woman named Casca, and she and Gutts [play table tennis]. But then Griffith meets an entity called the Idea of [Fun] and becomes the fifth member of the [Fun]hand after which he [makes rude comments about] Casca. Gutts is angry and sets off on a mission to [graduate from a good school so he can get a stable job and become a productive member of society.]

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I don't know about you guys, but I think I'd read that.

[Debitt]

Thread over, UC wins.

[Radical Dreamer]

Thread over, UC wins.

Agreed. XD Best post in the thread. XD

[Prince Asbel]

What?
I respectfully ask for a reference as to where that command crops up in the Bible, and the context thereof, just for the sake of education and understanding, not debate. If I take issue I will be sure to take it to PM, and urge all others to do the same.

Genesis 3. Adam and Eve were already wearing clothes, and yet God gave them new ones. Since God went ahead and gave them different clothes, we may conclude that he didn't approve of the first set. Besides, it's enough to point out the fact that they were ashamed of being naked only when they gained the knowledge of sin.

Really? Wow. Must be kinda hard to shower or change underwear then. Or reproduce.

Oh wait there is no commandment like that.

Obviously I'd make the distinction. But read my words on Genesis 3. There's no commandment there, but the meaning is clear.

Despite the username, Debitt is female.

Darn it. I've been trying to avoid doing that. <:-)

In the Sistine Chapel, which is a church by the way (hence the term "chapel") there is a fantastic painting by Michelangelo called "The Creation of Adam" depicting God creating Adam in the Garden of Eden. Since Adam was naked when he was created, and felt no shame, in the same way Adam is naked in the painting. In the church.

We certainly CAN argue a difference between walking around town naked and a painting by a fantastic artist that shows the creation of humanity by God Himself.

I'm sorry, but running such a huge risk of making others sin is not what Christians should be doing. To say that artwork is not drawn to be erotic is to dismiss the idea that people won't care if it's drawn like that or not.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Thread over, UC wins.

But... But I already won! I won with the boobies, remember? ::waah!:

And my thoughts on the nakedness was because they were ashamed. I mean, remember they were naked before and God didn't give them clothes.

[Radical Dreamer]

Besides, it's enough to point out the fact that they were ashamed of being naked only when they gained the knowledge of sin.

I actually come to a different conclusion here. Before sinning, they found no fault with their nudity; it was normal to them. It was only after sin entered the world that they became embarrassed and wanted to cover themselves, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the nude figure in general, only the sinful nature of humans.

I feel like if I say anything else, I'll be taking this into theological territory (which won't happen, by the way, the rest of you XD) or repeating myself. I think I'll wait on contributing again until I have something new to say.

[minakichan]

In The Olden Days, a young lady raising her skirt above the ankle was considered a very scandalous and suggestive gesture. Today, women show off their ankles all the time and no one cares. I think these things definitely can have gray areas and depend on context. To take the extreme example, if the super-ridiculously-overconservative Catholic Church of yore commissioned super-devout artists to create figures and paintings of religious figures nude, in an act to glorify God or to depict Bible stories, I kind of don't think that's unbiblical. On the other hand, I don't think it's possible to create God-glorifying pornography, but I'm sure someone will come in trying to prove me wrong. So there's a line.

There are some pieces of art that blur the line between art and porno (intentionally erotic works that are considered fine art and are displayed in galleries). They're waaaaay different from classical nudity, so I don't think it's a problem.

[Prince Asbel]

I actually come to a different conclusion here. Before sinning, they found no fault with their nudity]

Right.

I feel like if I say anything else, I'll be taking this into theological territory (which won't happen, by the way, the rest of you XD) or repeating myself. I think I'll wait on contributing again until I have something new to say.

I think I'll wait too. I think I've said everything I can about the subject, so I'm gonna take a break for now. This thread has been awesome, and it's great to see so many people really pursuing this issue into the ground. It's real important that we all get to grips on serious things like this, and I'm glad so many people contributed to the discussion. Everybody rocks!

...Except Nate.

Just kidding. We might have different views, but I still think you're a brother in Christ.

[Syreth]

At the risk of going all biblical and stuff, this discussion reminded me of a verse:

But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Really, if the issues discussed are approached with maturity and prayer, the right decisions as far as what to view/draw will emerge by themselves.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I've also heard critical opinion that state that Michelangelo's David was meant to be viewed from below, placing David on a pedestal, and that his That Thing was supposed to be similarly strong and manly and even erotic. Granted, I take critics with a grain of salt because they interpret EVERYTHING ON EARTH as sexual, but the possibility exists. Religious art is not ALWAYS mutually exclusive from sexuality *points to Bernini, my main man*.

You mean his penis?

[Tsukuyomi]

Genesis 3. Adam and Eve were already wearing clothes, and yet God gave them new ones. Since God went ahead and gave them different clothes, we may conclude that he didn't approve of the first set. Besides, it's enough to point out the fact that they were ashamed of being naked only when they gained the knowledge of sin.

Hmmmm... o.o I believe they were not always clothed to begin with o.o That's just me though. Perhaps I misunderstood a line or two ^^; Could you show me that they were? I'd appreciate greatly if you did