Discouraging Artistic Ability

[ken_sylvania]

Are you saying that in drawing nudes the body is being exploited for people’s lusts? That it can’t be a pure exercise in artistic pursuit?

"Artistic pursuit" in drawing, photography, and film has a long history of being used as an excuse for people to indulge in unholy and fleshly desires. It seems there are plenty of people who get a buzz out of indulging in the forbidden.

I’m not disputing that artistic pursuits have not been used as an excuse, but I’d love to hear some examples. I’ve never heard this narrative before. Or not applied to something as simple and timeless as trying to understand the human body in order to create an accurate representation of it. Da Vinci was so intrigued with how the body worked that he bought dead bodies in order to dissect them and see the inner workings. Now that’s pretty gruesome. But he was also the first to accurately describe the human spine, and the first to determine that the heart had four chambers, not two. His art and his study of anatomy can’t really be separated. He understood proportions in ways that were very new and significant.

I’m not sure that Da Vinci and his studies hold lessons for the modern anabaptist, but it would be foolish to say that studying anatomy and the naked body has nothing to do with recreating it in art form.

Sorry but I really don't care to wade through the search results that would come up in an attempt to gather for you names and details of those people.

[Sliceitup]

"Artistic pursuit" in drawing, photography, and film has a long history of being used as an excuse for people to indulge in unholy and fleshly desires. It seems there are plenty of people who get a buzz out of indulging in the forbidden.

I’m not disputing that artistic pursuits have not been used as an excuse, but I’d love to hear some examples. I’ve never heard this narrative before. Or not applied to something as simple and timeless as trying to understand the human body in order to create an accurate representation of it. Da Vinci was so intrigued with how the body worked that he bought dead bodies in order to dissect them and see the inner workings. Now that’s pretty gruesome. But he was also the first to accurately describe the human spine, and the first to determine that the heart had four chambers, not two. His art and his study of anatomy can’t really be separated. He understood proportions in ways that were very new and significant.

I’m not sure that Da Vinci and his studies hold lessons for the modern anabaptist, but it would be foolish to say that studying anatomy and the naked body has nothing to do with recreating it in art form.

Sorry but I really don't care to wade through the search results that would come up in an attempt to gather for you names and details of those people.

I don’t really need specific names and details. Maybe we’re talking about separate things. I thought you were saying there are broad sections within art fields that were solely advanced because of their pursuit of lustful vices.

[ken_sylvania]

I’m not disputing that artistic pursuits have not been used as an excuse, but I’d love to hear some examples. I’ve never heard this narrative before. Or not applied to something as simple and timeless as trying to understand the human body in order to create an accurate representation of it. Da Vinci was so intrigued with how the body worked that he bought dead bodies in order to dissect them and see the inner workings. Now that’s pretty gruesome. But he was also the first to accurately describe the human spine, and the first to determine that the heart had four chambers, not two. His art and his study of anatomy can’t really be separated. He understood proportions in ways that were very new and significant.

I’m not sure that Da Vinci and his studies hold lessons for the modern anabaptist, but it would be foolish to say that studying anatomy and the naked body has nothing to do with recreating it in art form.

Sorry but I really don't care to wade through the search results that would come up in an attempt to gather for you names and details of those people.

I don’t really need specific names and details. Maybe we’re talking about separate things. I thought you were saying there are broad sections within art fields that were solely advanced because of their pursuit of lustful vices.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of some of the supposedly professional film directors/photographers who apparently had a "thing" for photos of nude/scantily clad female subjects, some of the famous artists who had a weird fascination with the nude female form, etc. I'm not particularly familiar with DaVinci's work, so I'm not really in a position to say how his art informed his study of anatomy. I really don't understand though how drawing erotic pictures would have been necessary or even helpful in studying anatomy. To me that would be akin to saying that off-color jokes and ribald remarks help to make a better surgeon (it is my impression that such is not exactly uncommon even among well-renowned surgeons).

[JimFoxvog]

I see no Christian reason to ever allow it.

Are you saying that something like the Sistine Chapel is indecent and a Christian shouldn't paint fine art? I think there is beauty in what God created and called "very good".

[Soloist]

I don’t really need specific names and details. Maybe we’re talking about separate things. I thought you were saying there are broad sections within art fields that were solely advanced because of their pursuit of lustful vices.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of some of the supposedly professional film directors/photographers who apparently had a "thing" for photos of nude/scantily clad female subjects, some of the famous artists who had a weird fascination with the nude female form, etc. I'm not particularly familiar with DaVinci's work, so I'm not really in a position to say how his art informed his study of anatomy. I really don't understand though how drawing erotic pictures would have been necessary or even helpful in studying anatomy. To me that would be akin to saying that off-color jokes and ribald remarks help to make a better surgeon (it is my impression that such is not exactly uncommon even among well-renowned surgeons).

If you really want the example of what doctors use for their art of anatomy, look up Netter's anatomy. That's useful "art", not nude bodies.
Drawing people without clothing has no practical useful reason that is not based in perversion. Perhaps DaVinci was relatively unique in his study of anatomy and that was the only way to practically exchange data on it, however, much of his work is trapped in perversion too.

Are you saying that something like the Sistine Chapel is indecent and a Christian shouldn't paint fine art? I think there is beauty in what God created and called "very good".

Yes. Perhaps if the Catholics stopped drawing indecency, they would learn to control their vessels rather then be pedophiles.

[Sliceitup]

Sorry but I really don't care to wade through the search results that would come up in an attempt to gather for you names and details of those people.

I don’t really need specific names and details. Maybe we’re talking about separate things. I thought you were saying there are broad sections within art fields that were solely advanced because of their pursuit of lustful vices.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of some of the supposedly professional film directors/photographers who apparently had a "thing" for photos of nude/scantily clad female subjects, some of the famous artists who had a weird fascination with the nude female form, etc. I'm not particularly familiar with DaVinci's work, so I'm not really in a position to say how his art informed his study of anatomy. I really don't understand though how drawing erotic pictures would have been necessary or even helpful in studying anatomy. To me that would be akin to saying that off-color jokes and ribald remarks help to make a better surgeon (it is my impression that such is not exactly uncommon even among well-renowned surgeons).

Ok I understand now what you meant with that statement. And I agree that there are people who use their access in vulgar ways.

I’m not a Da Vinci expert, but he’s a very fascinating character. He drew prototypes for inventions that were hundreds of years before their time. And in his day there was no understanding of the skeletal or muscular system. There’s a reason that many artists study anatomy and spend time drawing little mannequin like figures. I have a child who is very skilled at drawing people. Their understanding of how the body works blows me away. Understanding how a body is functioning below the clothing allows them to accurately depict how the clothing drapes and folds when the person is in a certain position or movement. I didn’t realize the importance of it until I’d look at their drawings and wonder how they knew to put that fold there, or to shade this part darker. But that understanding only came from understanding the body underneath, and under the skin, the muscles and bone.

Take a look at Michelangelo’s David. It was sculpted in the same time period that Da Vinci lived. When you realize how little they knew about the human body at that time, the sculpture is positively genius. Look at the detail of his hand, his torso, and the way he is standing.

[Sliceitup]

I don’t really need specific names and details. Maybe we’re talking about separate things. I thought you were saying there are broad sections within art fields that were solely advanced because of their pursuit of lustful vices.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of some of the supposedly professional film directors/photographers who apparently had a "thing" for photos of nude/scantily clad female subjects, some of the famous artists who had a weird fascination with the nude female form, etc. I'm not particularly familiar with DaVinci's work, so I'm not really in a position to say how his art informed his study of anatomy. I really don't understand though how drawing erotic pictures would have been necessary or even helpful in studying anatomy. To me that would be akin to saying that off-color jokes and ribald remarks help to make a better surgeon (it is my impression that such is not exactly uncommon even among well-renowned surgeons).

If you really want the example of what doctors use for their art of anatomy, look up Netter's anatomy. That's useful "art", not nude bodies.
Drawing people without clothing has no practical useful reason that is not based in perversion. Perhaps DaVinci was relatively unique in his study of anatomy and that was the only way to practically exchange data on it, however, much of his work is trapped in perversion too.

Are you saying that something like the Sistine Chapel is indecent and a Christian shouldn't paint fine art? I think there is beauty in what God created and called "very good".

Yes. Perhaps if the Catholics stopped drawing indecency, they would learn to control their vessels rather then be pedophiles.

It is because of people like Michelangelo and Da Vinci that you have things like Netters Anatomy drawings. Actually, Da Vinci has many sketches that look a lot like the Netters drawings. Do a simple Google search for Da Vinci anatomy sketches.

As for drawing people without clothing, most any artist will actually do that. They draw the shape of the body with oval like sketches forming the shape. Then they fill in that, and then put the clothes on. It’s a process that doesn’t usually start with a clothed figure. If it does, the artist is almost surely envisioning the human shape underneath it.

Perhaps this thread illuminates one of the problems with being an artist in the anabaptist community. I’m not sure how many in the culture understand the concept of how art depicting human form is created. An insistence that a naked body must be viewed as erotic unless in a medical situation is not going to be fertile ground for budding artists. The body can be erotic, but it can also be utilitarian, and to deny it any purpose other than eroticism seems to be antithetical to what we say we want our bodies to be. Anabaptists constantly try to remove any erotic sentiment to the body with their dress codes. Is this because they actually are only capable of seeing it as erotic?

[ken_sylvania]

No, I was thinking more along the lines of some of the supposedly professional film directors/photographers who apparently had a "thing" for photos of nude/scantily clad female subjects, some of the famous artists who had a weird fascination with the nude female form, etc. I'm not particularly familiar with DaVinci's work, so I'm not really in a position to say how his art informed his study of anatomy. I really don't understand though how drawing erotic pictures would have been necessary or even helpful in studying anatomy. To me that would be akin to saying that off-color jokes and ribald remarks help to make a better surgeon (it is my impression that such is not exactly uncommon even among well-renowned surgeons).

If you really want the example of what doctors use for their art of anatomy, look up Netter's anatomy. That's useful "art", not nude bodies.
Drawing people without clothing has no practical useful reason that is not based in perversion. Perhaps DaVinci was relatively unique in his study of anatomy and that was the only way to practically exchange data on it, however, much of his work is trapped in perversion too.

Are you saying that something like the Sistine Chapel is indecent and a Christian shouldn't paint fine art? I think there is beauty in what God created and called "very good".

Yes. Perhaps if the Catholics stopped drawing indecency, they would learn to control their vessels rather then be pedophiles.

It is because of people like Michelangelo and Da Vinci that you have things like Netters Anatomy drawings. Actually, Da Vinci has many sketches that look a lot like the Netters drawings. Do a simple Google search for Da Vinci anatomy sketches.

As for drawing people without clothing, most any artist will actually do that. They draw the shape of the body with oval like sketches forming the shape. Then they fill in that, and then put the clothes on. It’s a process that doesn’t usually start with a clothed figure. If it does, the artist is almost surely envisioning the human shape underneath it.

Perhaps this thread illuminates one of the problems with being an artist in the anabaptist community. I’m not sure how many in the culture understand the concept of how art depicting human form is created. An insistence that a naked body must be viewed as erotic unless in a medical situation is not going to be fertile ground for budding artists. The body can be erotic, but it can also be utilitarian, and to deny it any purpose other than eroticism seems to be antithetical to what we say we want our bodies to be. Anabaptists constantly try to remove any erotic sentiment to the body with their dress codes. Is this because they actually are only capable of seeing it as erotic?

Sketching the basic form of the body with ovals/circles, etc is a whole different thing from drawing nudes. There are a plenty of conservative Anabaptist artists who can draw realistically without practicing drawing nudes.

I'm not at all insisting that an artist cannot draw the naked body without erotic sentiment, but it appears that quite commonly there is much more involved. "Scholarly discussions" of DaVinci's drawings seem to suggest that even if they were strictly utilitarian to him, they have given a very different impression to others.

[Sliceitup]

…suggest that even if they were strictly utilitarian to him, they have given a very different impression to others.

Could you explain this a bit more? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

[Soloist]

As for drawing people without clothing, most any artist will actually do that. They draw the shape of the body with oval like sketches forming the shape. Then they fill in that, and then put the clothes on. It’s a process that doesn’t usually start with a clothed figure. If it does, the artist is almost surely envisioning the human shape underneath it.

Perhaps this thread illuminates one of the problems with being an artist in the anabaptist community. I’m not sure how many in the culture understand the concept of how art depicting human form is created. An insistence that a naked body must be viewed as erotic unless in a medical situation is not going to be fertile ground for budding artists. The body can be erotic, but it can also be utilitarian, and to deny it any purpose other than eroticism seems to be antithetical to what we say we want our bodies to be. Anabaptists constantly try to remove any erotic sentiment to the body with their dress codes. Is this because they actually are only capable of seeing it as erotic?

Both my wife and I grew up in the world. Our opinions do not reflect a cloistered view. My wife also is also pretty good at drawing human figures, she took art classes. If drawing an oval body with legs, arms and a head was considered erotic, I would agree with you. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with drawing an oval body. The details of the sexual aspects of the body are not necessary to draw correct details of the body and if the focus is to draw the body without details under the clothes, then there is nothing wrong with that. If you have to draw the correct anatomy before you draw the clothing... there is problems there.
The world runs to and fro for all manner of perversity, some jobs such as the military are not something we would ever be involved in yet we do benefit from their protection. The police likewise, and I'm sure we could produce more examples. The point though is just because something is useful does not mean the production is something we should be doing. As for the human body, no skin view body is necessary to teach any medical skill at all. Muscles? yes, Nervous tissue? yes, Bones? yes... but full body skin detail... no. I have seen more medical nudity then any non medical ever would and likely more then most Anabaptist medical as I specifically worked in Urology. Did I need special drawings to know what I was doing? a few specific drawings for placement of the catheters were used, and I don't honestly think it was necessary, but they were definitely not something I would ever want any Anabaptist or any Christian for that matter drawing.

My wife's comments:
I was in a lot of art classes during my first 12 years of school, and I especially liked drawing people. I would often use photographs, and was sometimes paid to make a drawing for a gift. I also took a college art class where we drew other items, like I remember violins, boots, ect, but I decided not to go for the figure drawing class because it included naked models coming in. I don't actually see a practical use for that. If I have a picture or someone I am drawing, knowing the basic proportions and seeing what I am drawing is good enough. If I need more than that to make it realistic, chances are the subject I am drawing needs either more or looser clothing. We have plenty of art and photography if it's necessary for medical purposes, and given the high rates of pornography issues in even church going people, I don't see how I could ever recommend it.

As far as it goes, we can use all sorts of reasons and justifications for why it's ok, but given that we live in an age where medical pictures/art are easy to come by, I don't see the point. I personally found cadavers very educational, but not at all erotic. We can be thankful for the contributions of DiVinci, but his personal life would not be something we would want other Christians to emulate. Also, out of the vast majority of what comes from this kind of art, it seems like it goes to things like anime, graphic fantasy art, pornography, and of course, one of our community colleges proudly announcing in their newspaper the first of its kind (no minors allowed) art gallery showcasing humans in various acts of reproduction. Also, for anyone who's seen Titantic, there is another example of how it gets used.

Therefore, even if there is a small benefit (medical, ect), the downsides and the environment make it far from worth it.