Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

This topic was inspired from a little discussion in the "Triplets of Belleville."

I would like to ask you, what is your opinon of nudity in art?

For me, I don't mind it if the characters are covered up or even if they're not, but no details are shown. Such things were shown in Omohide Poro Poro, My Neighbor Totoro, and Grave of the Fireflies.

It's what I call a modesty form of nudity.

But if it's full nudity, then I will completely abstain from it.

And why is that?

Romans 6:13 states it best for me.

"Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness."

Another reason is because I want to keep my Chastity. And I believe that I should use that chastity for those of the opposite gender that I love. If I went off into these sorts of interests, then I would feel that I lied to those that I love.

So then, that is my opinion.

And with that, what is yours?

Yeah, well, as I was asking before somebody decided to vent their frustration on my thread (perhaps one of the bullies at school stole their sandwiches?), how do you feel about *animated* nudity? As I said, nobody's boy parts have been offered to sin, as the nudity itself is merely pen and ink.

Well, I thinks it fine if its in the name of art. I mean, if some painter was taking picture of people who are posing while he was painting and sending them to his friends and adding it to paper view to pay for his mother heart surgery while his dad is in rehab for his porn addiction, so the painter sells porn on the internet to pay for that, while he has to pay for his morgage so he poses for nude paintings, of course its wrong!!!

Im sorry if this topic gets banned.

_________________

I think nudity in art can be done very tastefully, whether certain naughty bits are covered up or not. It can also be done very slanderously and pornographically, which detracts from the actual "art" in my opinion. I watched the movie "Calendar Girls" a while back, and seeing aging women posing nude for photography (with the most intimate body parts still concealed), I found true art in it. Seeing them posed nude that way reminded me how we are all equal human beings, and thus we are all subject to the same frailties in life. We are all mortal, we all have times when we may be exposed for our true natures after attempting a façade, and we all are very beautiful--even if only to a select few who would see it. Nudity in art, when done tastefully, reminds me of all that and more (things which I do not know how to express in words), so I can very much appreciate it.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Oh, grow up.

So you'll know, I thought the way you did that was an attempt at making fun of Alex.
If I was wrong, prove me wrong by not being a jerk and following the rules.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

This is one of my pet topics so I have strong opinions here. I hope this doesn't come across as rude, because it's not at all intended to be.



But is that really "nudity in art"? It's implying nudity for the characters, but it isn't really there for the viewer. I see where you're coming from, though. Watching a cartoon, we put ourselves in their situation, so we're being asked to imagine ourselves in a situation with nudity even though even then we can't see it. Some sensitive to the issue could find that offensive, but you do not, as I understand.

But is that any different from the other thread about swearing? If "jeez" implies Jesus, and it's wrong for that reason, then if nudity is implied, isn't that just as bad?



This seems to me to be saying that a person shouldn't use their body for evil. We haven't established yet that nudity is evil and this verse doesn't imply that. It's highly unlikely that the bible condemns nudity apart from sex and lust (which I'll get to in a bit). First check this out:



Isaiah went around totally naked for three years. God told him to.



Seeing a naked body doesn't automatically generate thoughts of lust. That's a myth. People get used to equating sex and nudity because nudity doesn't exist outside of sex in our culture at this time. But if nudity creates instant lust, then we have no control. If we have no control, then it can't be a sin, because sin is by definition something we sign off on. And we see in "primitive" cultures where they don't have clothes and poverty-stricken cultures where they can't afford clothes that nudity is not what's giving them moral difficulties. I'm sure you know that temptations to lust occur looking at clothed women too, but you choose against it. It's the same for them.



So I have no problem with it, as long as things that really are evil aren't being glorified. In the Triplets, that's an individual call, though you shoudl be able to make it from the descriptions people have given. But say the nudity presented in some episodes of the japanese version of Dragon Ball (not a DB fan), most of those renaissance nude paintings and statues, anything like that, totally fine.

I have no problem with it, as long as there isn't any sexual acts done or anything of the type.

And, to tell you the truth, I can't see WHY you would have a problem with it.

But that's just me.

I have no issues with nudity in art. I feel it adds to it.

_________________

Not too me. Sometimes showing nudity takes away fom the scene and tries to instead to draw our attention to the ...umm...."Distraction(s)"

_________________

I fail to see how nudity in art is sin or an "instrument of wickedness".

One word: pr0n.

_________________

Not all nudity in art is porn, jerky. Some of it is done quite tastefully.

_________________

True, but I was answering Zeno's point.

_________________

I would like to comment that this topic also includes that.

By art, I meant in a style that is not done with real people.

I mean, it depends where you draw the line. Images such as "Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time" (Agnolo Bronzino) contain nudity in what is definitely a sexual context, but you'd never see prints of them sold as pornography. Whereas, under the umbrella of "modern art", it is possible to find images which in any other context *would* be considered pornography but are considered art because of the artist's name attached to them.

That isn't art. I don't think many people would use classical paintings as pornography. I've never been aroused by the Venus de Milo, have you?

If it's not obviously for the purpose of pornography or some other depraved function, there's nothing wrong with it. Most nudity in classic art was simply to appreciate the beauty of the human form. You can't properly view a work of art without knowing its context. Keep in mind that at the times from which much of our classical art is derived, nudity such as is seen in paintings wasn't such a horrible scandalous offense as some people think it is today.

From what you've stated, Alex, I assume that what you're really asking about is nudity in cartoons or animation? Once again, it depends on whether or not it's meant to be in a sexual context. Either way, I don't really think it's wrong, I just don't care much for nudity in a sexual context.

I see nothing wrong with the human form, and I don't see why anyone else does. This level of prudishness almost angers me, as it belittles and attaches a vulgar label to the art in question, of which it may not be deserving.

Major difference between personally feeling that something is wrong (ie. Alexandar) and pushing your viewpoint onto others in a vehement fashion.

Alexandar hasn't told anyone else what they can or cannot do. He's only posted his viewpoint and been mocked for it.

_________________

I wasn't trying to mock Alex for it. I'm saying that placing art on the same level as pornography is wrong. Nor do I have anything against abstaining from viewing nudity, as long as one accepts that there is a difference between nudity in an artistic context and nudity in a sexual or pornographic context.

Begging your pardon Mr. Iahimatoa, but I'm a boy.

To Santa Zeno: May I ask you a question? What is art? And what makes it more polite then pornography?

For some reason I remember you posting that you were female. Crud.

I'll go edit now.

_________________

It's quite alright.

And your correct. For the past 6 months I said that.

But that's for another discussion. Toast Paint please.

My favorite definition of art is:

"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."

As to what makes it more polite than pornography, that's where you have to use your own judgement. Personally, I think that aesthetic pleasure is more polite than sexual pleasure.

As a woman and something of a feminist, I can say that I have no problem with nudity in art (photo/video or hand-drawn/animated) so long as it's not done in a gratuitous manner. The human form is beautiful in all its states, clothed or nude. It's only when sexual titillation is so obviously the intent (such as in pornography) that it becomes cheapened.

There's a heck of a lot of nude photography out there that is completely tasteful, even though all the "naughty bits" are showing. And what about ancient Greek and Roman statuary? Is Michelangelo's David trashy? Hecks no.

I guess what I mean to say is that it's all in the artist/photographer's intent. If the art in question is being produced for the purpose of providing sexual gratification, then it's pornographic. If the artist/photographer intends to create a work of art, then it's art. So there.

_________________

But not all artists depict beautiful things. Pablo Picasso's Guernica depicted the bombing of Guernica in 1937.

Or John Cage's In The Name Of The Holocaust Part A and B depicted the horrors of the Holocaust.



And may I ask what this aesthetic pleasure is?

To MHG: But I don't feel the beauty of looking at a nude figure. So what am I then?

These are questions which you'll have to answer for yourself. There're no definite answers to these things.

If you don't want to do something, don't do it. Most people can, using basic judgement, discern between art and perverse materials. If you're unable to, then by all means, only partake of art with which you are comfortable.

I would never advocate doing something that makes you uncomfortable. That violates my core belief.

I have absolutely no problem with nudity in art. Like some others said, basically, if it's done tastefully, there's no problem, in my eyes. As for that quote from Romans, I don't really think it counts for art, as it is not a real person that is nude.

Art doesn't have to be covered up to be beautiful or even good for that matter. Just because you refuse to watch anything with nudity does not mean that the art/movie/whatever is not a beautiful piece of work.

_________________

No offense, but that sounds too forceful for my likings. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion and your tastes in art, but no one is forcing you to look at the nude art, so to want to censor it is trying to impose your own artistic views on others--and that's just wrong. As much as I hate Milton Babbitt's music, I have no desire to censor him or to make him stop writing music, because I have no place to force my own tastes on the rest of the world.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

We never had to wear clothes in the first place, you know. We merely started wearing them at some point in history and it became the standard. By now, people have started feeling that nudity is something to be ashamed of.

I think nudity in artwork can be beautiful, if, as others have said, it's not intended to arouse. If it isn't intended to make you feel anything other than appreciation for the art itself, there's no reason to feel guilty.

_________________

I'm not MHG (couldn't you tell?!), but it would make you someone who doesn't feel the beauty of looking at a nude figure. Some people find beauty in a plastic bag floating on the breeze, other people think it's trash. But there's nothing morally wrong with looking at plastic bags or not wanting to look at plastic bags.

Aesthetic pleasure is that feeling you get when you look at something beautiful. Like a sunset or great painting or great architecture. Or kawaii Anything on earth that you can look at and think, "wow, that's beautiful, look at that!"

Because topics like these are uncomfortable for many parents to bring up, a lot of people nowadays aren't taught how to differentiate between aesthetic attraction to something and lustful attraction. A lot of people don't know how to look at a human body and say "wow, look at that, it's amazing that God could make something that beautiful". It IS possible to think that without also thinking of evil deeds to do with that other body, just as it's possible to admire someone's awesome new game system without wanting to steal it.

A personal example: One time I went on a really long hiking trip and fell into a group with this guy who was fit and well-proportioned. Without having to style it or shave, his hair and beard were perfect in a natural kind way. He had good skin color and muscle tone, was young had and this laid back way of holding himself even with excellent posture. Seeing this I felt aesthetically attracted as in "this is a good looking person". I got really confused because I didn't know how to differentiate the feelings. I went went through a mini-identity crisis over this, wondering if I might be gay, until I realized that I didn't want to do anything sexual with the guy or even imagine doing that. I realized that the feeling was just "wow, this is beauty", the exact same awe as looking at a sunset or a mountain range.



Not sure how one implies the other. We have intelligence, therefore the human body is evil? It could just as easily be said "we have a body, therefore intelligence is evil." But really there's nothing to suggest that they're opposites. That's probably not the way you meant it, though. Help me understand where you're coming from.

The way I see it, we have a mind, we have a spirit, and we have a body. All three are equally us, none should be treated with contempt or we are treating ourselves with contempt. It's one thing if you just aren't aesthetically pleased by the human form in art, but if you're absolutely repulsed by it, I see that as a kind of identity crisis.

Yet another post too long...

IT hit the nail on the head. I didn't mean to imply that everyone should believe that the nude human form is beautiful, and if you don't think that way, then there's something wrong with you. I was merely sharing my opinion on the subject.

If you don't feel the same way that I do, that's totally cool. Just like you might like a certain type of music that I don't enjoy. It doesn't mean that the music is bad or wrong. Everyone has different tastes and beliefs, and none of them are wrong - they're just different.

Just to reiterate - if a nude figure is presented in a way that is not intended to be sexual, then it ought not be viewed as sexual. There are many people in the world that can't help but relate the two ideas (nudity and sexuality), and that's fine and probably very common. But that doesn't mean that those of us who can (and do) separate the two ideas are automatically immoral.

A side note: What about doctors and other health professionals who see nude people every day in their work? They (or at least the great majority - I'm sure there are some corrupt people out there) are able to treat patients objectively without having any sexual thoughts. And exposing oneself to such a trained professional in the proper context is not at all sexual or immoral, is it?
I know the two ideas (art and medicine) really have nothing to do with one another, but I thought it was a good way to explain how nudity can be nonsexual.

_________________