The nude in art
Submitted by Drifter on 2002-09-28 20:45:11, Saturday
In reply to Survey: What is Art + What is Porn submitted by Halo on 2002-09-28 06:18:14, Saturday
|
The nude male figure is a recurring theme in the world of art. The nude figures of youth are no exception either. You can see this theme dating as far back as the time of the Pharaos (probably further, Im only speaking from what I know and Im not an art student). The Kouros, a type of sculpture depicting a nude youth with his leg foot forward as if walking, is one such style of art dating back to Egyptian times. Also, you can see the nude male form and nude youths as recurring themes in the art of Donatello, Michaelangelo, Botticelli, and many others. The use of the camera as an instrument for the creation of art is rather new. Its taken time to be accepted in the art world, and there is still debate on whether photography can be art. However it appears to me that it has been gaining (or has already gained) wide scale acceptance. It is only natural that photographers revisit some of the same recurring themes we find in other mediums. The beauty of the naked human body is one such theme. Witness the artistic nude photography of Jock Sturges for such examples. However, other times it is not the beauty that the artist wants to capture, but rather he/she wishes to make a much more abstract point and uses the nude body only as a tool. Witness the artistic photography of Sally Mann for examples of this. When it comes to the internet though, it seems that many people are using art as an excuse for legally selling pictures with no real artistic merit, obviously designed to appeal to the prurient interests of pedophiles, while still managing to skirt the legal entanglements. I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, what is the artistic value of the photograph? what is the meaning behind it? What is it designed to do? is it designed for you to admire the beauty of the child? is it designed to get some abstract point across? or is it designed simply to elicit a sexual response? Would an art gallery ever consider displaying such a photograph? Most of the times, if you ask yourself those questions you can more or less tell whether something is really art or is simply barely legal porn. A warning, however. Even though many of these photographs may be art, they may still elicit a sexual response from us as boylovers. Few would argue that Sally Mann's photography is anything but art. But, to a boylover looking at a nude image of Emmet (her son, and the nude model in many of her photographs), this art will most likely elicit a lustful response. As christians, we should seek to minimize lust. So, even though something may be art, and there may be nothing morally or legally wrong with it, it still may be wrong for us to look at it if it causes us to lust. To a non-boylover looking at the same picture, it would not be sinful, but being that it causes us lust, it may well be sinful. Drifter |
Follow ups: