Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Art and Literature for Catholics => Topic started by: jim111 on May 02, 2013, 11:59:43 PM
-
I think pictures of Mary breast feeding are OK, but i feel nude art is an unnecessary temptation to sin.
-
Yes, I've wondered myself what the best understanding of this is. I've gotten different answers from priests. I do know that a Pope ordered that the human figures in the Last Judgment of Michelangelo Buonarroti be clothed. Later on, though, the clothing was removed in a restoration process.
-
Yes. I'm especially horrified by the normalization of these so called "Life Drawing" classes, in which models come in and pose nude for the students to draw them. Absolutely absurd and yes, evil.
-
I've never been fond of "nude art" myself, I always thought it was immoral.
-
What about the nudity in the Sistine Chapel? I remember an old poster who was banned, Ladislaus; he said that he thought the Sistine Chapel should be sandblasted. I agreed with him.
-
Art school was so long ago--I read a book called something like Nudis Veritatis. The thinking was that in sacred art the nudity symbolised purity. (art school discouraged purity, to put it mildly)
I know there are any number of beautiful paintings of Adam and Eve, The Expulsion...they could only cause temptation in the most perverted person. Then there are all of the putti and a good number of Holy Infants...The Expulsion I have in my mind's eye is heart-wrending, I think by a German.
-
What about the nudity in the Sistine Chapel? I remember an old poster who was banned, Ladislaus; he said that he thought the Sistine Chapel should be sandblasted. I agreed with him.
Yeah, the nudity at least needs to be covered up in those paintings.
-
Frankely, I dont see why people cant paint some nice appropiate paintings. It could lead to mortal sin, and it is not necessary. If people do paint Adam and Eve in the garden they could put some animal furs on them. Nudity is bad.
-
What about the nudity in the Sistine Chapel? I remember an old poster who was banned, Ladislaus; he said that he thought the Sistine Chapel should be sandblasted. I agreed with him.
Absolutely. The emphasis on nudity in Renaissance art was the result of the massive pagan "Classical" revival which took place in Europe during the Renaissance period. Much Christian art from that time period is corrupted with Pagan themes and aesthetics.
-
I am really kind of shocked how many here think nude art work is evil??? I know there are some pieces that art not sɛҳuąƖly indifferent (and thus not art but porn) but the Sistine Chapel is amazing depiction of the Last Judgment! The many pieces of Madonna and Child (Why would you approve these and not the Last Judgment?), the other pieces of the four last things. It is the artists attempt to give us a looking into the depths of eternity where we will stand before God with absolutely nothing but out merits. Other nude pieces show the crowing of creation. The body is amazingly beautiful. If the rare percentage of people that fall into sin over such a thing, should avoid it themselves! Not create a puritan society. And this is not just a modernist view but many of your favorite popes and saints felt the same way. St. Pius the X didn't sandblast the Sistine Chapel. And thank God he didn't.
-
I am really kind of shocked how many here think nude art work is evil??? I know there are some pieces that art not sɛҳuąƖly indifferent (and thus not art but porn) but the Sistine Chapel is amazing depiction of the Last Judgment! The many pieces of Madonna and Child (Why would you approve these and not the Last Judgment?), the other pieces of the four last things. It is the artists attempt to give us a looking into the depths of eternity where we will stand before God with absolutely nothing but out merits. Other nude pieces show the crowing of creation. The body is amazingly beautiful. If the rare percentage of people that fall into sin over such a thing, should avoid it themselves! Not create a puritan society. And this is not just a modernist view but many of your favorite popes and saints felt the same way. St. Pius the X didn't sandblast the Sistine Chapel. And thank God he didn't.
I don't think nudity is neccessarily evil, but why is everybody naked in the Sistine Chapel? Why are they striking erotic poses? Why did so many Renaissance artists insist on painting Biblical figures totally nude for no reason?
Ultimately this obsession with the nude is derived from Pagan cultures and their worship of man and flesh. Medieval artists avoided such idolatry because they had not been corrupted by non-Christian ideas as the Renaissance man had.
-
I don't think nudity is neccessarily evil, but why is everybody naked in the Sistine Chapel? Why are they striking erotic poses? Why did so many Renaissance artists insist on painting Biblical figures totally nude for no reason?
Ultimately this obsession with the nude is derived from Pagan cultures and their worship of man and flesh. Medieval artists avoided such idolatry because they had not been corrupted by non-Christian ideas as the Renaissance man had.
Well if you consider displaying the tool of their martyrdom, being damned to hell, or joining the blessed in heaven erotic, I guess my understand of erotic is different then yours. I am just baffled as to why one of the greatest pieces of Catholic art should be "sandblasted" or how they could lead the average person to sin.
I will have to look into what you are are saying about where the nudity in art came from. Perhaps you have a point. I do not know enough about art history to speak to different periods of time and why they did what they did. I just know some of the most beautiful pieces I have seen over the years are nudes, and very tasteful.
-
Forgive my vulgarity, but as an example, in one scene depicted in the Sistine Chapel, Adam's genitals are literally hanging in Eve's face. It's clearly deliberate and totally unnecessary.
-
So a pope tried to eliminate the nudity in The Last Judgement. Are there any other instances to support nude art (and to be clear, I mean it in the context of these Renaissance artists, not modern nude 'art.') being evil? One would think that considering how much of it there was, and in a time where the Church had great influence, that if nude art was considered evil, that there would have been far, far less of it.
-
Are nude sculptures on the same level as nude paintings?
-
Forgive my vulgarity, but as an example, in one scene depicted in the Sistine Chapel, Adam's genitals are literally hanging in Eve's face. It's clearly deliberate and totally unnecessary.
I dunno, I guess I kind of see it as they were naked and unashamed. It seems to me he is trying to express that Adam and Eve did not have a concept of their nakedness prior to the fall by their close, yet nonsɛҳuąƖ, proximity. In other words it doesn't seem arbitrary nudity for the sake of nudity. Nor does it seem erotic to me.
-
Nude catholic or classical art is fine.
Modern art which is nude or erotic is wrong.
The sistine chapel was not painted to arouse lust, but rather to arouse our souls and lift our minds to God.
Our senses are assaulted by the modern and perverse views of the human body. This was not always the case. The naked human body is beautiful. It is God's creation. It is our fallen nature which tends to pervert this idea.
Pax
-
Staring at a man's homoerotically emphasised protruding buttocks or dangling genitals isn't going to lift anybody's mind towards God anytime soon. An emphasis on the human body belies a preoccupation with worldy, rather than spiritual, things.
-
TheKnight Vigilant:
You would have more of a case if (at least) half a dozen holy popes (some sainted) didn't have a problem with it. The supposition being that if they had a problem with it, they would have done something about it. St Pius V was no friend of the homos, he had them burnt at the stake. Don't you think he would have done something if he thought it patently inappropriate? Or Pio Nono, St Pius X, Innocent IX, Leo XII, et al.
If it bothers you, don't look at it. If it doesn't, appreciate it. I think it's one of those kind of things.
-
http://socrates58.blogspot.com.au/2007/01/was-michelangelo-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.html
-
TheKnight Vigilant:
You would have more of a case if (at least) half a dozen holy popes (some sainted) didn't have a problem with it. The supposition being that if they had a problem with it, they would have done something about it. St Pius V was no friend of the homos, he had them burnt at the stake. Don't you think he would have done something if he thought it patently inappropriate? Or Pio Nono, St Pius X, Innocent IX, Leo XII, et al.
If it bothers you, don't look at it. If it doesn't, appreciate it. I think it's one of those kind of things.
Actually, something was done about it. It caused a scandal, with many officials within the Church considering it obscene. Daniele Da Volterra was hired to paint over the exposed genitals and the painting remained in that state for almost 500 years until a recent "restoration".
"If it bothers you, don't look at it"? Can the same be said for this statue which is sitting in the Vatican?
(http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Pope+Benedict+XVI+Pope+Benedict+XVI+Holds+ys8hVCMixtEl.jpg)
-
Forgive me, I was under the impression that the restoration took place quickly after pope Julius.
As to the ghoul-Christ, the only thing that can be said about that is to dynamite it.
-
Comparing that monstrosity above to the Sistine Chapel is a little bit of a stretch? The former deserves the trash heap!
-
Forgive my vulgarity, but as an example, in one scene depicted in the Sistine Chapel, Adam's genitals are literally hanging in Eve's face. It's clearly deliberate and totally unnecessary.
I agree, too much emphasis on the genitals, but in this scene, before the temptation, wasn't Adam & Eve in a state of innocence and therefore their nakedness wasn't a sin?
-
Forgive my vulgarity, but as an example, in one scene depicted in the Sistine Chapel, Adam's genitals are literally hanging in Eve's face. It's clearly deliberate and totally unnecessary.
I agree, too much emphasis on the genitals, but in this scene, before the temptation, wasn't Adam & Eve in a state of innocence and therefore their nakedness wasn't a sin?
Well, their shame was not brought about by nakedness as such, if I recall: rather, by the concupiscence within them which was aggravated by their nakedness.