Friday, September 16, 2005

Should nude photographs be considered art or pornography?

The News Review, Roseburg, Oregon

September 12, 2005

"Nude photography is, in my opinion, pornography. From a moral point of view, I think that the naked human body, portrayed in a photograph, incites lust -- which is condemned expressly in the Bible (I John 2:16). The human body is beautiful; it is a work of art in its own right. But the body does not need to be displayed nude to show its magnificence.

I do think differently, though, when it comes to Renaissance art displaying nudity. Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, which contained nudity, is one of the finest works of art in all mankind, and it was not created to incite lust, but rather, different emotions. Many other paintings and sculptures from the Renaissance contain nudity, but like the Sistine Chapel, the emotions they draw from us are not feelings of
lust . . .

Truth of Youth is a column for teens to express their views. The rest of this column here, along with some dissenting views:

The cited passage from the Bible:
I John 2:16 "For the things in the world--the cravings of the earthly nature, the cravings of the eyes, the show and pride of life--they all come, not from the Father, but from the world. " Weymouth New Testamont

This commentary is from a high school student attending a Christian school; other students take a different view as do I. Nor do I get the same interpretation from the quoted Bible passage that this student seems to arrive at. They say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Whether I look upon the form of Michelangelo's David or a nude beachgoer, I see wonder and art and beauty . . . not pornography. Rick

Related Posts with Thumbnails