What is the difference between artistic nudity and porn? (2354 in CCC)?


#1

I'm a little confused on 2354 of the CCC.
This is what it states:
"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the publics), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense (does this mean that it's a MORTAL sin?). Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials."

So I understand that porn IS a sin; so what is the difference between what is considered as "artistic" nude art and pornography? At what point is the line drawn if any? Or are both on the same level?

For example:
porn - there's movies, pictures..or whatever is out there.
nude "art" - paintings & statues [such as back in ancient times and throughout history] and pictures up to today.
Is it the WAY people are portrayed? whether tasteful or distasteful?

Would this/these fall under mortal or venial sin?

Thanks


#2

[quote="BriarRose87, post:1, topic:341551"]
I'm a little confused on 2354 of the CCC.
This is what it states:
"... It is a grave offense (does this mean that it's a MORTAL sin?). Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials."

So I understand that porn IS a sin; so what is the difference between what is considered as "artistic" nude art and pornography? At what point is the line drawn if any? Or are both on the same level?

For example:
porn - there's movies, pictures..or whatever is out there.
nude "art" - paintings & statues [such as back in ancient times and throughout history] and pictures up to today.
Is it the WAY people are portrayed? whether tasteful or distasteful?

Would this/these fall under mortal or venial sin?

Thanks

[/quote]

Pornography is grave matter, but to be a mortal sin, you must have full knowledge that what you are doing is grave, which you now do, and have full consent when viewing such material. Bottom line - stay away from it! Masturbation, the predominant consequence of viewing pornography, is also grave matter and a mortal sin if all 3 conditions are met.

As to art, there's a very fine line between art and porn, most especially with modern art. If you are one who is prone to temptations, obviously viewing such art should be completely out of the question. As to the artists creating such art, it depends on their intent whether or not they sin in creating it, though any kind of eroticism in art should be completely avoided.

I would doubt something like Michelangelo's David would be considered erotic to anyone, but if it were, that individual should not view it.


#3

[quote="BriarRose87, post:1, topic:341551"]
I'm a little confused on 2354 of the CCC.
This is what it states:
"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the publics), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense (does this mean that it's a MORTAL sin?). Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials."

So I understand that porn IS a sin; so what is the difference between what is considered as "artistic" nude art and pornography? At what point is the line drawn if any? Or are both on the same level?

For example:
porn - there's movies, pictures..or whatever is out there.
nude "art" - paintings & statues [such as back in ancient times and throughout history] and pictures up to today.
Is it the WAY people are portrayed? whether tasteful or distasteful?

Would this/these fall under mortal or venial sin?

Thanks

[/quote]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]The difference is how the subjects are portrayed. In pornography human beings are portrayed as nothing more than objects. They are stripped off all dignity they have as human personas and are put to the base level of beasts. As the late and great Pope John Paul II stated:
“There is no dignity when the human dimension is eliminated from the person. In short, the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much of the person, but that it shows far too little.”

Yet, in art, the subjects are portrayed as human beings with personality and dignity. In art there is an appreciation for the mystery which is the human person. In pornography there is no appreciation for this mystery and thus no appreciation of the human person at all.

Now as to what can be classified as "art" that is another story. Of course there are somethings which claim to be "art" when in reality it is really just soft-core porn.
[/FONT][/FONT]


#4

I know it when I see it.


#5

Ok, thank you all for answering.

I was confused; because I know like for some art classes they do, do nudes and other art forms...but, I wasn't sure if the Church saw them as the same as pornography or they classified something like that (that is not-so-degrading) as separate.


#6

(God Help Me Not Be Vulgar!)

The simplest way to differentiate between "Art" and "Porn" is "WHAT'S THE POINT?"

Another questions is "WHAT IS THE FOCUS?" Are our eyes meant to be drawn to any "strategic areas"?
If a edited photo, for example, has a nude person sitting on the grassy field in kind of
a fetal position staring into the sky as though in deep contemplation, I think it is safe
to say that it isn't porn (though might be for some hitting puberty), but rather a piece
of art with an prominently intended thought (not sexually based).

NOW think of "what two people can do together," (oy vay, hope I don't get in trouble,
small a phrase as that was), and it being photographed, filmed, whatever, I think it's
PERFECTLY reasonably to consider it as porn.


#7

But porn does not require nudity!


#8

:thumbsup::thumbsup

Nude != porn; clothed != innocence.

The human nude is the highest form of physical being, and the wonder that is our soma can be done justice to artistically only in the nude.

I’d say, if the art is such as to call attention to the sexual areas for sensational purposes, it is porn; if it is such as to express the form or movement of the body, it is art.

ICXC NIKA


#9

Good questions. In our current, hypersexualized media culture, proper respect for the dignity of a beautiful woman is automatically discarded by too many. There is a (planned) porn epidemic out there where photographs of nudes are designed for sexual arousal only. Nobody is going to be aroused by photos of the Sistine Chapel, works by the master painters of the past that included nudity, or statues that are nude either.

Women in particular have been reduced to a set of body parts and that’s it. There are few standards and the goal is to take those standards away as well. In the 1950s, for example, there was brief period where pornographers disguised their true intentions by producing “classy” publications like Playboy but the message was the same: it’s all about sex. Others produced “artist model” magazines, supposedly for artists who could not afford to hire a live model. Today, those same publications are right next to the porn in larger used bookstores.

There is no outlet in “popular culture” that presents the nude tastefully - a word that has lost 99.9% of its meaning. How many magazine covers present photos of women in their underwear - falsely called swimsuits - that barely cover anything?

Honestly, there are no legitimate outlets in the real world for nude photos, nude paintings (made within the last 10 years or so) or nude sculpture made recently. I don’t think the average person is going to buy a statue of a nude, drag it to where they live and display it because they have “taste.” Taste, in general, is only for those who have standards. The mainstream media wants to throw taste out the window.

So, unless this nudity is included as a necessary element in sacred art, which too many people have been conditioned to ignore, then what’s the point? All the media cares about is getting you to lust after some actress, singer or other attractive celebrity. Her dignity as a person is gone. When I hear some young lady posed somewhere, my first thought is: “Does she have a mother or a father? People who raised her to be respectable and not to allow herself to be turned into an object for lust?” I won’t name names, but there are some women out there that, if she was my daughter, she’s not posing here or there while wearing next to nothing or nothing on my watch. That’s called “allowing yourself to be exploited because your agent said it would be ““good”” for her ““career.”””

So, those with a proper disposition and intent, with a full understanding of the dignity of the person involved, may produce work that edifies, but odds are, you’re not going to see it - ever - in some “men’s magazine.” It will be sacred art.

Peace,
Ed


#10

[quote="edwest2, post:9, topic:341551"]
Good questions. In our current, hypersexualized media culture, proper respect for the dignity of a beautiful woman is automatically discarded by too many. There is a (planned) porn epidemic out there where photographs of nudes are designed for sexual arousal only. Nobody is going to be aroused by photos of the Sistine Chapel, works by the master painters of the past that included nudity, or statues that are nude either.

Women in particular have been reduced to a set of body parts and that's it. There are few standards and the goal is to take those standards away as well. In the 1950s, for example, there was brief period where pornographers disguised their true intentions by producing "classy" publications like Playboy but the message was the same: it's all about sex. Others produced "artist model" magazines, supposedly for artists who could not afford to hire a live model. Today, those same publications are right next to the porn in larger used bookstores.

There is no outlet in "popular culture" that presents the nude tastefully - a word that has lost 99.9% of its meaning. How many magazine covers present photos of women in their underwear - falsely called swimsuits - that barely cover anything?

Honestly, there are no legitimate outlets in the real world for nude photos, nude paintings (made within the last 10 years or so) or nude sculpture made recently. I don't think the average person is going to buy a statue of a nude, drag it to where they live and display it because they have "taste." Taste, in general, is only for those who have standards. The mainstream media wants to throw taste out the window.

So, unless this nudity is included as a necessary element in sacred art, which too many people have been conditioned to ignore, then what's the point? All the media cares about is getting you to lust after some actress, singer or other attractive celebrity. Her dignity as a person is gone. When I hear some young lady posed somewhere, my first thought is: "Does she have a mother or a father? People who raised her to be respectable and not to allow herself to be turned into an object for lust?" I won't name names, but there are some women out there that, if she was my daughter, she's not posing here or there while wearing next to nothing or nothing on my watch. That's called "allowing yourself to be exploited because your agent said it would be ""good"" for her ""career."""

So, those with a proper disposition and intent, with a full understanding of the dignity of the person involved, may produce work that edifies, but odds are, you're not going to see it - ever - in some "men's magazine." It will be sacred art.

Peace,
Ed

[/quote]

I believe it was Pope John Paul II who said that the problem with pornography is not that is shows too much, but that it shows too little. Pornography does not reveal the whole person.


#11

[quote="davidv, post:10, topic:341551"]
I believe it was Pope John Paul II who said that the problem with pornography is not that is shows too much, but that it shows too little. Pornography does not reveal the whole person.

[/quote]

:thumbsup:

This isn't quite the same thing, but when a person sees their spouse naked, they still see the whole person. They might even be aroused by their spouse, but they are (presumably) not lusting after their spouse or reducing them to an object. So nudity in and of itself is not sinful. Appreciating the beauty of the human form can be a great good.

It is confusing because, at least in my experiences in art classes as an undergrad, attempts were made to "pornographize" nude statues and paintings, to ascribe certain ways of thinking to the artists that weren't common until recently, etc. But such is education these days in many places. :shrug:


#12

[quote="Neofight, post:7, topic:341551"]
But porn does not require nudity!

[/quote]

What? I don't get it.

Peace,
Ed


#13

A clothed body can be pornographic and so can its artistic representations.

Nude is not synonymous with “prurient”.

ICXC NIKA


#14

“So nudity in and of itself is not sinful.” This is what I was wondering. Like if all nude pictures were a bad/sinful thing. I’m only saying this because I love art; and a lot of art throughout time, had paintings of nude men/women… but the lines weren’t drawn like it is today and neither did they have “pronography” like today. So I wasn’t sure at what point was the line crossed. Like are people allowed to appreciate the human body whether nude/clothed - men/women without it being sinful? Or is the fact that an individual is naked just purely a sinful thing?
So part of my confusion comes from the changing times. Art has mostly been transferred through technology [videos/photography/cameras] instead of painting and sculpting. But because the porn industry is a big industry and has shown degradation of the human body over so many years - does that make photos of naked individuals ALSO porn [that don’t necessarily portray the porn industry]? Like I don’t exactly know what the Church teaches of WHAT IS porn…the CCC doesn’t exactly explain a lot. I hope that makes sense…:frowning:
This isn’t some major thing for me. I had gone to Mass and when we say our prayer intentions, I sometimes hear intentions for people to walk away from it. And now I feel guilty because what I thought was “art” may not be art. You know what i mean?


#15

Artistic nudity is depictions of the human form, sans clothing.

Pornography is depictions of people displaying their genitals in overtly sexual ways and engaging in sex acts you didn't even realize were physically possible.

There's a huge difference.


#16

[quote="GEddie, post:13, topic:341551"]
A clothed body can be pornographic and so can its artistic representations.

Nude is not synonymous with "prurient".

ICXC NIKA

[/quote]

I'm paid to use my imagination and work in the media. I can think of no examples that confirm your statement. Nude is usually synonymous with prurient.

Peace,
Ed


#17

[quote="BriarRose87, post:14, topic:341551"]
"So nudity in and of itself is not sinful." This is what I was wondering. Like if all nude pictures were a bad/sinful thing. I'm only saying this because I love art; and a lot of art throughout time, had paintings of nude men/women.... but the lines weren't drawn like it is today and neither did they have "pronography" like today. So I wasn't sure at what point was the line crossed. Like are people allowed to appreciate the human body whether nude/clothed - men/women without it being sinful? Or is the fact that an individual is naked just purely a sinful thing?
So part of my confusion comes from the changing times. Art has mostly been transferred through technology [videos/photography/cameras] instead of painting and sculpting. But because the porn industry is a big industry and has shown degradation of the human body over so many years - does that make photos of naked individuals ALSO porn [that don't necessarily portray the porn industry]? Like I don't exactly know what the Church teaches of WHAT IS porn....the CCC doesn't exactly explain a lot. I hope that makes sense....:(
This isn't some major thing for me. I had gone to Mass and when we say our prayer intentions, I sometimes hear intentions for people to walk away from it. And now I feel guilty because what I thought was "art" may not be art. You know what i mean?

[/quote]

I see what you mean. It is definitely difficult, because sin enters into it. Adam and Eve hid themselves from God after eating from the tree and put on fig leaves, because they now knew that they were naked. It wasn't a problem before. But sin made them think about that nakedness in a new way.

I think a person needs to be careful around nudity. Sin inclines us to look at others in the wrong way, to turn them into objects - not just sexual ones, either - so and so will help me get that promotion, or will clean the house so I don't have to. If you enjoy art, and beauty, and that includes the nude form, that's fine - you'll see nudes in the Vatican, after all! But if such things are a near occasion of sin for you - if you have a difficulty seeing the figures depicted as people, for instance, or want to use them to fantasize, etc, then you should avoid them.

I define pornography as overtly sexualized material designed to incite lust in the viewer. It kind of comes down to the "I know it when I see it" definition, but even so, pin-up girls from the 40s and 50s look a LOT different than your average Cosmo cover, and it's not just the hairstyles that have changed...it's what the clothes cover (or don't), the poses, the expressions on the faces. It's so troubling that the women who do these things think they are "empowered" by this. They're not. And this isn't even scratching the surface of what's out there, but thankfully that's all that I've seen in a long time. And I turn the covers around in the checkout line because I've got two young boys, and I'd like to avoid having their brains warped by this bombardment of images. But I wouldn't turn them away from a nude, necessarily.


#18

[quote="BriarRose87, post:14, topic:341551"]
"So nudity in and of itself is not sinful." This is what I was wondering. Like if all nude pictures were a bad/sinful thing. I'm only saying this because I love art; and a lot of art throughout time, had paintings of nude men/women.... but the lines weren't drawn like it is today and neither did they have "pronography" like today. So I wasn't sure at what point was the line crossed. Like are people allowed to appreciate the human body whether nude/clothed - men/women without it being sinful? Or is the fact that an individual is naked just purely a sinful thing?
So part of my confusion comes from the changing times. Art has mostly been transferred through technology [videos/photography/cameras] instead of painting and sculpting. But because the porn industry is a big industry and has shown degradation of the human body over so many years - does that make photos of naked individuals ALSO porn [that don't necessarily portray the porn industry]? Like I don't exactly know what the Church teaches of WHAT IS porn....the CCC doesn't exactly explain a lot. I hope that makes sense....:(
This isn't some major thing for me. I had gone to Mass and when we say our prayer intentions, I sometimes hear intentions for people to walk away from it. And now I feel guilty because what I thought was "art" may not be art. You know what i mean?

[/quote]

As I saw written on a web site I won't name, the writer correctly pointed out that in the past, "the taboos were much stronger then." Then, starting in the late 1960s, I was there, "artists" were arguing for more freedom. Yeah, right. What kind of freedom? Excuses to show female body parts or, at least, women in their underwear. Women and men were taught modesty. And for us guys in Catholic School, the message was clear: "NO SEX UNTIL MARRIAGE!" In the 1970s, I saw my first porn bookstore and found out they were opening across the country, along with strip clubs and topless bars. A few years prior, the worst you could legally do was Playboy which had nude and partly nude photos of women. In the 1970s, the masks came off. Now you had graphic, gynecological sex. The pornographers worked very hard to get the laws changed. To change our perception about a private, intimate act intended solely for husbands and wives.

They LOVED what they created and they KNEW a lot of us would get addicted. I can't make it any clearer. So nude photos today - where do they go? Why would anyone think they were art?

Peace,
Ed


#19

The definition in context to it's method of representation is assumed to elicit different actions from the viewer.

Artistic nudity is defined as a way to express the nature of the body, it's curves and is to be seen not in a manner of eroticism, but of Divine creation and architecture.

Pornography is a graphics representation that elicits a model of lust and adultery. To arouse and stimulate rather than just ponder, wonder and question.

There is no fine line between each other and while artistic impression can offer the relevant questions; it can also lead to the elicitation of sin. If the compulsion for pornography exists in a viewer than it is better for those persons to avoid even the idea and principle of both.

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>


#20

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.