|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Jan 4, 2017 11:10:23 GMT -6
So I'd heard that They Wither got some flack for having nudity in their artwork. I seem to remember a special pressing of Strongarm's "Advent of a Miracle" having similar artwork - featuring a naked woman. Do you guys find it distasteful? Do you care? Is there a boundary for acceptable/tasteful artwork and has it been reached yet?
My vote is, as long as its not sexually explicit, its fine... They Wither and Strongarm used artwork/paintings, but I even think photography wouldn't even be taboo... but I might be calloused toward such a thing, what with being an Art Major in college and all.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Jan 4, 2017 14:20:49 GMT -6
I don't make a distinction between "tasteful" and "distasteful". I feel like a lot of Christians let culture influence their morals too much, instead of looking at issues objectively. ... Note, that I don't just mean American culture though - like, "hahaha stupid americans so uptight about nudity lolol you should be like us europeans you stupid americans lolol"; because statements like that come from the exact same mentality. Neither European culture or American culture define right and wrong. God's teachings should be our gauge for morality, not culture. That being said, I still don't agree with using nudity in artwork. Nudity by itself is widely discouraged in the Bible, including Revelation 16:15, which logically rules out nude photography involving real people. Though I don't agree with nude paintings/drawings, either. Regardless of its intended meaning, it's basically a textbook example of what 1 Corinthians 8 talks about: something that isn't inherently sinful, but can easily mislead people and cause others to stumble. Especially since pornography is such a problem in this society. I mean I'm an artist myself, I could probably theoretically find some "tasteful" or "meaningful" way to have nudity in say, cover art for my music or something, but I don't, because it could still be a stumbling block.
|
|
|
Post by _ on Jan 4, 2017 17:24:59 GMT -6
because statements like that come from the exact same mentality. Neither European culture or American culture define right and wrong. *all the poetry snaps* Oh also, great question/thread!
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Jan 4, 2017 19:35:07 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 20:05:52 GMT -6
During a recitation of poetry, audience members snap their fingers to show that they agree with or like something (it's kind of like quieter applause).
|
|
|
Post by _ on Jan 4, 2017 21:14:21 GMT -6
Yes, thank you. (In my mind, writing "poetry snaps" was better than writing "bars!," which is what I said out loud when I read that section and which is a term used by fans or rap artists when they are impressed by insightful/creative/well-delivered rap lines ha.)
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Jan 5, 2017 5:20:22 GMT -6
I don't make a distinction between "tasteful" and "distasteful". I feel like a lot of Christians let culture influence their morals too much, instead of looking at issues objectively. ... Note, that I don't just mean American culture though - like, "hahaha stupid americans so uptight about nudity lolol you should be like us europeans you stupid americans lolol"; because statements like that come from the exact same mentality. Neither European culture or American culture define right and wrong. God's teachings should be our gauge for morality, not culture. That being said, I still don't agree with using nudity in artwork. Nudity by itself is widely discouraged in the Bible, including Revelation 16:15, which logically rules out nude photography involving real people. Though I don't agree with nude paintings/drawings, either. Regardless of its intended meaning, it's basically a textbook example of what 1 Corinthians 8 talks about: something that isn't inherently sinful, but can easily mislead people and cause others to stumble. Especially since pornography is such a problem in this society. I mean I'm an artist myself, I could probably theoretically find some "tasteful" or "meaningful" way to have nudity in say, cover art for my music or something, but I don't, because it could still be a stumbling block. Good post bro! I can think of nudity portrayed in a less sexual way in art than someone in a swimsuit photograph. The Bible presents nakedness as shameful and degrading (Genesis 9:21; Exodus 20:26; 32:25; 2 Chronicles 28:19; Isaiah 47:3; Ezekiel 16:35-36; Luke 8:27; Revelation 3:17; 16:15; 17:16) but its all in the context of "public nudity". This is why you can't be naked yourself in an art gallery full of nude paintings and sculptures. As far as art itself, I disagree that portrayal of a naked body in art is 100% sinful for the artist and the viewer. There are some fine lines though and this is one of those things that personal conviction does plays a part. If looking at The Birth of Venus makes someone want to rub one out, I'd say the problem is them (and their lust), not the painting. If the artist makes a piece with the sole intention of generating lust, that's another problem. I could provide my opinion example by example if asked, but again - taking this to 100% is, in my opinion, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jan 5, 2017 8:24:15 GMT -6
So I'd heard that They Wither got some flack for having nudity in their artwork. I seem to remember a special pressing of Strongarm's "Advent of a Miracle" having similar artwork - featuring a naked woman. Do you guys find it distasteful? Do you care? Is there a boundary for acceptable/tasteful artwork and has it been reached yet? My vote is, as long as its not sexually explicit, its fine... They Wither and Strongarm used artwork/paintings, but I even think photography wouldn't even be taboo... but I might be calloused toward such a thing, what with being an Art Major in college and all. Thoughts? Another album that did this was Apostisy - Famine of a Thousand Frozen Years. I love this album but I'm not a big fan of the topless lady riding the horse on the cover. I get the whole idea of nudity in art and I do agree to an extent, however I think it is an unwise decision to use this for Christian albums because as was already mentioned we live in a world of temptation and if we are delivering a message of deliverance then do we really want to be instrumental to someone's temptation? Some are more sensitive than others with temptation so while I feel nothing when looking at that album art it doesn't mean someone else's lust wont be triggered.
I believe Sympathy - Abyssal Throne also used some artwork depicting nudity.
I feel that we need to be mindful of these things. Also theres the whole thing about trying to be "beyond reproach".
1 Timothy 3 details the "Qualifications of Overseers and Deacons" but I think it is relevant as any type of "minister" whether it be pulpit or band:
I used to be told all the time by my late father in law to stay "beyond reproach" in the things I do, meaning don't put myself in scenarios or situations that could cast me in a bad light. Even if my intentions are not sinful, if release an album with a naked lady on the cover, no matter how pure my intent, there are going to be people thinking I am promoting pornography and before you know it the world will call me a heretic or something. Of course I know theres always someone who doesn't like what your doing, but we can still try our best.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Jan 6, 2017 9:21:28 GMT -6
I believe violence in entertainment is more dangerous than nudity. Shame regarding nakedness is something man put upon himself. When Adam told God he was naked, God didn't say, "Yes you are naked I wish you had covered that up sooner," He said, "Who told you that you were naked?" So nakedness became a symbol of man's unrighteousness and rebellion and yes I agree that we should avoid things that would make others stumble... I just also believe that America's infatuation with violence in entertainment is more dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Jan 6, 2017 12:57:55 GMT -6
How do you figure?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2017 14:29:17 GMT -6
Watching something violent doesn't make me want to do something violent, but nudity sometimes causes me to feel lustful. But different people will have different reactions to violent and sexual content, and whether or not those will act as stumbling blocks will vary from person to person. That being said, in general, I don't really think that America's "infatuation" with violence in entertainment is something to be too concerned about. From what I understand, far more Americans are caught up in sexual sin than violent sin.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Jan 6, 2017 14:54:00 GMT -6
It is my opinion that gratuitous violence does things to our subconscious.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Jan 6, 2017 16:01:29 GMT -6
Nudity is a cultural thing. I haven't been to a nude beach, but my parents have. Huge difference between a naked person in front of you vs. the portrayal of nudity in a painting.
As far as violence, I think someone could be desensitized by seeing it... but I don't believe watching violence will always make someone violent.
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on Jan 7, 2017 7:33:50 GMT -6
Yeah not always but I'm theorizing that viewing realistic violence on television could also contribute to anger issues. Guess it's a little off from the original topic but hey conversation is better than no conversation! Lol
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Jan 7, 2017 11:13:26 GMT -6
I know [serial killer] Ted Bundy talked about how pornography changed him over the years, and he also talked about violence in movies. He mostly talked about violence in the context of pornography, but he also seemed to imply that violence in general could have a negative impact on certain people. Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Jan 7, 2017 12:56:36 GMT -6
conversation is better than no conversation! Lol Agreed! Though, I think discussion of violent images is still on topic because its not just nudity that's controversial... I know [serial killer] Ted Bundy talked about how pornography changed him over the years, and he also talked about violence in movies. He mostly talked about violence in the context of pornography, but he also seemed to imply that violence in general could have a negative impact on certain people. Who knows? It mostly depends on the person than the media. If violent video games caused people to be violent, there would be millions of incidences across the world. Instead, there's one-off situations caused by unstable individuals... I can think of a big fuss over someone committing suicide over a Judas Priest song. (people seemed to blame the band, not the person who died - which is weird in my opinion) The thing is, I think there have been a few cases of MES where people do crazy things. It isn't what they're hearing, but them just going mad because they hear it over and over and over... While I haven't heard "Happy Birthday" for 5 years strait, but I could see someone going postal because they've just had enough. Speaking of nudity and culture, there was a time where a woman even showing her ankles was considered risque/taboo/slut-worthy. This tells me that its not what's shown, but how society interprets what's shown and the individual's sensitivity to it. Back in Victorian times, it was practically Boner City to see any skin on a woman... whereas someone who grew up going to nude beaches or on a nudist colony, probably wouldn't think anything about seeing people naked. Myself, I've seen plenty of obscene secular metal artwork... mostly photography. Boobs in a drawing seems pretty tame in comparison. I do understand why an extreme Christian band would incorporate such imagery though. The artistic value for one, but also, this does appeal to unsaved listeners.
|
|