Is the chaste nude an oxymoron?

<p> Yeah, but harassment complaints, lawsuits, sexual paranoia,...from my European perspective it strikes me as mostly an American issue.</p>

<p>I think Phylo got it right. Americans are pretty hung up on sex. We went from the 1950's sexual repression, enjoyed a brief period in the late 60's and 70's of relative sexual freedom (and perhaps excess) to more sexual repression from the 80's on, this time in the form of radicalized feminism.<br>

As someone who has taught art for several years now I can proudly say our drawing classes are very well set up. The model signs a release form when he or she gets hired. Bascially the college owns the artwork, as well as the individual student. The model has little or no say in how the works are used. Bottom line is if you don't want nude reproductions of yourself out there, don't apply for the job! We've never had a model complain.<br>

And lets face it, chaste, erotic or sexual is ALL in the eye of the Beholder. So I really think your question is framed in a context that only YOU can answer. And we all must make those personal ethical decisions for ourselves.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[T]he college owns the artwork, as well as the individual student. The model has little or no say in how the works are used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And so you say that you have it "very well set up." It sounds as if the setup is pretty good for the college (and perhaps for the faculty members), but not so good for the students, much less the models.</p>

<p>Does the college actually own the student, or are you just being a bit sloppy in your writing?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I think you are dealing with people`s personal beliefs or prejudices, and of course you need to respect them and go along with their wishes on photos. That said the great majority of people look better in clothes than out of them, unless you are young and very fit. Nudity in itself does not involve ethics, it is what you or they make of it. First know yourself and don`t do anything that does not feel "right" to you, we all have prejudices of one type or another. How we deal with them determines how well we sleep at the end of the day.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>This is a dull question. The answer depends on how you define "chaste" and "nude" and "art." It is pretty pointless to debate whether your definitions are better than mine.... and that is the "substance" of all of these "debates".</p>

<p>Anthony, I think that we have to define our terms in order to begin a serious discussion. After that, we can get down to serious inquiry, which might even require us to reformulate the question so that it is more meaningful for us as individuals.</p>

<p>The literature (including that on the web) is loaded with interesting commentary about nude photography. With a bit of digging, surely one may come up with something that one can bring to the discussion so as to enliven it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Phylo and Russ: I do agree that the "hang-up" on nudity and sex appears at this point in time to be an American problem. However, I must point out that at least some of the original American colonists inherited this from their brethren in England, and from elsewhere in Europe. It is not an American invention.</p>

<p>Anthony: I apologize in advance if this response seems snooty or overly agressive. If you feel that these "debates" are pointless, why did you bother to post any comments? Indeed, it seems to me that you are wasting your time. So, why don't you snatch up your ball and go home?</p>

 

<p >I would argue that there can be such a thing as a “chaste presentation of a nude”. Many images of well known artists come to mind: one is hardly going to get aroused by viewing Michelangelo’s Last Judgment. And I think the argument that a nude body cannot be viewed without at least some degree of arousal is flawed. That depends on the artist and the viewer. </p>

<p >If the artist did not deliberately intend to stir up sexual arousal (pornography), then the image could be said to have presented the nude body for its esthetic appeal unrelated to sexual arousal. True, only the viewer knows where the line is crossed from esthetic appreciation to unchaste desire, but that does not depend on clothing alone: even well dressed bodies might stir up someone erotically. Taken to its extreme one might then argue against any representation of the human form whatsoever. But that would amount to blaming the artist for the viewer’s shortcoming.<br>

I think the presumption should lean towards a viewer who is chaste or at least neutral and not leaning towards deliberate unchastity and an artist whose work is not erotic in its objective. Then we can talk about a “chaste nude”. Why not?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[T]o have the need for a man to have someone with him when with a woman or to have the door leave open and stuff like that as a "safety-mechanism" well...that sounds just a little wee bit strange.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Phylo, I think that Billy Graham was talking about being on the road on his "gospel crusades." as I recall. I presume that the point was that, while away from his wife for such sustained periods of time, he occasionally did feel tempted and had found a way to deal with those temptations. I might be wrong, but I think that that was the gist of it.</p>

<p>I imagine that even evangelists have their groupies, and so Graham surely had his--and who knows what kinds of things happened to him or what opportunities he came upon?</p>

<p>I never watched or heard Graham on television more than once or twice for a very few minutes each time, nor did I follow his life, but I found it refreshing that a person who spoke more or less constantly of ethical and religious matters could at least admit to being tempted. Some persons pass themselves off as being so "chaste" that they are never tempted. I am sixty-five years old now, but I am still not to that point. The monkey is still on my back, and when it leaves it will probably be because I am so weak and decrepit that I am beyond sexual desire.</p>

<p>So the monkey can just stay on my back, as far as I am concerned, even if that means that I might have to come up with my own novel strategies for dealing with this or that temptation. In my work, it means keeping the door open--just enough to remind myself, not others, that someone could walk in any time. It works very well. Some people have total self-control. The rest of us can benefit from a little help from time to time.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>My first thoughts are that I'm in full agreement with Luis G. in his opening statement. Obviously you are extremely conflicted in your thoughts of chastity, nudity, pornography and obscenity.<br>

It seems we are getting a scripted story board of your mind in your posts. There are those who will always consider any form of nudity as being obscene. Just accept it as you see it. There is no right or wrong , black or white in the issues you bring up. It is the individual's own judgement as to what these issues mean to them.<br>

I know what I like and what I find disturbing, but that is only my own opionion. Why are other people's opinions so important to you?</p>

<p>Don't hide behind Luis. He said nothing of the sort.</p>

<p>I am not conflicted in the least, and I do get tired of the inevitable sophomoric<em> ad hominem </em>post.</p>

<p>The point of philosophy is to engage in reasoned argumentation for the sake of a higher level of understanding. That requires interlocutors, those who are willing to engage one in reasoned discussion.</p>

<p>I see that you have been on Photo.net for many years (since December, 2002), and so far your only comment on a photo has been of someone's naked girlfriend shot:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/1188130</p>

<p>Yours is not the kind of opinion that I find interesting or helpful. If you must engage in amateur psychologizing, then please psychoanalyze yourself. Trying to read all kinds of things into other persons' motives is not what philosophy is about. It is the very antithesis of philosophy.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, you don't surprise me in the least with your reply. What a classic elitist answer. You really took the bait on that one.<br>

Since you've resorted to insults further comments on your part will only prove how childish you are.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You really took the bait on that one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you really served yourself up. I have been teaching at the college level since 1974, I am sixty-five years old, and I am familiar with the baiting tactics that persons can introduce into any discussion, whether on the web or in the classroom.</p>

<p>Sometimes no response is the best response, as in the case of a thirtyish man who was a student in a philosophy class of mine about five or six years ago. I had been talking about the amount of empty space there is in every atom, and I made reference to the wall, which I said likewise was mostly empty space. (We were actually discussing Berkeley's views on perception v. reality, especially ultimate reality.)</p>

<p>His response? "You guys have got way too much time on your hands."</p>

<p>Did I try to respond to that? No, there was no point. You are<em> not</em> thirty. You are old enough to know better. You offer me the same kind of nonsense, and I will not insult you but I will talk straight to you---unless and until it is quite clear that there is no point in any further response.</p>

<p>My guess is that we are at that point. I have not insulted you. You gored yourself, and you did a fine job of it.</p>

<p>In the spirit of this thread, however, let us look again at the sole picture which you have commented on in your many years on the site:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/1188130</p>

<p>Maybe you could tell us what this photo means to you in the context of the present thread. I can't wait to hear. (Your comment at the time was that she had a "wonderfully haunting expression," to which Nestor Botta wonderfully replied, "Was she scared?")</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Richard Downey's remark was even more to the point:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Lovely girl but agree that the shirt, in that position, comes off as a "show your boobs" shot. Something from a Fort Lauderdale Spring break.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your remark above makes a little more sense now:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are those who will always consider any form of nudity as being obscene. Just accept it as you see it. There is no right or wrong , black or white in the issues you bring up. It is the individual's own judgement as to what these issues mean to them.<br /> I know what I like and what I find disturbing, but that is only my own opionion.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So there is just opinion and opinion--no truth to be found. Well, you are entitled to be an ethical relativist if you want. I myself am having none of that school of thought.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Typical american puritan behavior towards nudity. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Typical american puritan behavior towards nudity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Behavior" is an interesting word choice here, Awao. Perhaps you could elaborate for us. Some of us are pretty slow.</p>

<p>Now, if what you really mean is "attitude" rather than "behavior," then we have something to discuss. I respect the subjective view about what is indecent or unchaste--up to a point. Leaving the matter at that point, however, suggests that nothing further can be said and that nothing further can be found.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding American puritanical tendencies, the fact is that all of the great civilizations presently in existence show conflict between traditional and more contemporary mores. I am a great believer in challenging received opinion, especially that of one's own culture. The problem is that persons show many of the same divisions in all of the great existing civilizations. This suggests to me the possibility that there are values that are held to by many persons across cultural divides. This fact proves nothing, but it does raise the question of whether there might be some universal values that are worthy of being affirmed.</p>

<p>The questions certainly are universally intelligible, even when the answers differ.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>One thing that is clear is that what is<em> thought</em> to be indecent keeps changing. Whether or not there are any universal values with regard to the nude that are worth affirming, one cannot help but confess that at times the changes in morals and standards of decency seem to reflect nothing quite so much as changes in fashion:</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/05/26/20100526SPTSFASHION.html</p>

<p>What is considered to be fashionable is often, however, quite arbitrary. What is considered to be decent likewise seems at times to be quite arbitrary as well. One almost despairs of finding any universal values to affirm where the degree of dress or undress is concerned.</p>

<p>Conventions change, of course. Is there anything that goes beyond mere convention and arbitrariness where standards of decency and purity are at stake? Is there, for example, anything based in human nature that could possibly provide a standard? I have not found it, but sexual modesty surely exists on some level in all cultures. In no culture are the norms so loose and variable that "anything goes." What one makes of that is quite another thing--and I do not quite know what to make of it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Landrum, I doubt I add anything to your definition gathering or pinning the morality aspect or the comfort factor or anything else that in the discussion. Still..<br>

If it contributes, I add my own lay people-photographer view. I am not much troubled by the female form, naked or partially clothed. I find it attractive and interesting in the same way I look at a Greco Roman statue as beautiful (even as it expresses an ideal of the unclothed body versus the gravity enhanced reality of most).<br>

If your subject resists or resents revealing garments that is a choice as much about personal taste as a testament to anything on the subject in abstract.<br>

Chaste is a religious term, at least to me. (Am not about to google it that would take all the fun away..).<br>

A gent I met runs a 'naked ladies in paradise' web site.He advertises for models with this line: " Tasteful nudity" $100 per hour for one hour shoot . (That likely means no copulation, simulated copulation,gross display of the genitals, And that would takes it out of the realm of artistic photography altogether, I would submit and breach contemporary standards,well some standards). <br>

Check out the really well don HBO video boxed set series "Rome." Re nudity and sex and how it fits in to societies older than all of ours ,like Classical Rome.<br>

Nudity and sex were a part of Roman life without all the interesting overlay that Judaism and Christianity enveloped later on.. I mean tje gods were naked and did stuff why not people? <br>

Maybe, hey who can say, maybe it is time to put away essentially tribal injunctions and parsings. (Titillating , as always and with a veneer of sophistication better yet:-), Eh what? )</p>

 

<p><em>"Does the college actually own the student, or are you just being a bit sloppy in your writing?"</em><br>

Of course you know very well the college doesn't own the student. Students have the rights to reproduce their works. The models may reproduce images of themselves...but the contract they sign states that any images of them are property of the college and students. The concept is if you don't want to give up that right, don't be a model! It's not perfect but it works well enough. <em></em><br>

I hope you find whatever answer or moral imperative you're looking for from this discussion, and aren't just yanking everyone's chain. But I guess that's what internet forums are for....<em><br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>II hope you find whatever answer or moral imperative you're looking for from this discussion, and aren't just yanking everyone's chain. But I guess that's what internet forums are for....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey, Russ, this is all among consenting adults, (wink). <br>

Sorry,really am as I could not take a week to read all the past references cited. I did get a peek at the co ed with the boobs. Very nice one that. <br>

Anthropology makes the female mammary glands fascinating to(some) males. While others, and I notice some other countries seem to have a tendency in that regard, perhaps more primate still, and no offense intended as the apes are our kissin' cousins,- find the bare female <em>buttocks</em> so absolutely delectable.<br>

A species preserver we all know that. Beyond Psychology and social convention and religon and pre dating same by eons. Even I, an old toothless tiger now, kind of mind leaped when I saw nudity in the title under active discussions forums. happy trails. But so long and winding,phew.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Chastity. Purity. Ethics. All of these terms in relation to nudity reflect the general <em>erotophobic</em> attitude of our society. This attitude was historically based on <strong>religion</strong>, which teaches us to feel <strong>shameful</strong> about our sexuality. If you can step back and shed this ecclesiastical cloak, you'll see that there's nothing wrong with nudity and there's nothing wrong with nudity in art or photography. Nudity in art need not cross the line into "pornography," although I don't believe there's anything wrong with pornography and erotica, either.<br>

Just remember, religion creates sexually repressed people. There is nothing inherently shameful about sex and nudity. Young children, naturally, do not feel shame; they are taught to feel shame by their parents/teachers/clerics. And they grow up to be the adults who object to your nude art.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course you know very well the college doesn't own the student.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Russ, I was just playin' wit' ya over your last sentence below:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The model signs a release form when he or she gets hired. Bascially the college owns the artwork, <em>as well as the individual student</em>. (My emphasis)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that I should have made it a little clearer that I was only joking.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Of course I realize how important it is to get a release from the model so that the students as photographers can then market their work. Apparently you guys work that out with the models up front in an agreement with the college. That sounds reasonable to me--and about as exploitative or non-exploitative as any other kind of deal one makes when one signs on as an employee, any kind of employee. One either accepts the terms or looks elsewhere.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I hope you find whatever answer or moral imperative you're looking for from this discussion, and aren't just yanking everyone's chain.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>For me, Russ, the question is whether there are any moral values unique to sexual ethics, including the ethics of nude photography, or whether or not we simply apply our usual moral imperatives (keeping promises, telling the truth, etc.) to those activities. I still do not know the answer to that one and doubt that I will find it on Photo.net or anywhere else in the foreseeable future. The romantic in me still wants to believe in "one right person" (yes, here I am not sixty-five years old and still trying to live the fairy tale), with all of the baggage that goes with that. I suspect that sexual purity, whatever it really means, is really part of the romantic ideal covered up with religious verbiage--but I really don't know. </p>

<p>I keep these conversations going because I keep hoping that someone will give me some new insight, and once in a while someone really does. Most of the opinions expressed here I have heard before, but not always. Once in a while someone startles me with an observation that had never occurred to me. Mostly, though, I just like to get differing persons' opinions. I think that I am increasingly the empirical sociologist at heart and less the rationalist philosopher--although I don't want to give up on either mode of inquiry. </p>

<p>I actually am a political theorist/philosopher operating out of a political science department who gets to teach only about three courses in political philosophy in that department. Once in a while I also get to teach ethics, intro. to philosophy, or logic in a philosophy department, but not too often. I do not make any special claims to being a philosopher: I think everyone is in some sense a philosopher, to the extent that they keep asking these questions. I certainly do not think that the degrees and other trappings of academia give me any claims to wisdom--but no, I am not just yanking people's chains. I'm serious about this, even as I know that I will never set the world on fire with anything new of my own.</p>

<p>Thanks for responding again, in any case. Not many persons would have bothered.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>When debating if there is a response, sexual or not, or if there is anything such as "real" or "ideal" anything one needs to argue from a philosophical entomological, neurological or some kind if -ical standpoint .</p>

<p>If post-modernism has taught the world anything, it's that art truly is decided by the viewer. So it's fairly impossible to have a work of art that "is" anything, beyond its most basic physical components. Yes, a picture can be what appears to a woman, yes that woman can be blond, yes she can have no clothes on. Beyond that, it's up to the viewer, not the artist, to decide if the picture is pure, chaste, or anything in-between. Of course, it's possible to make a photo more, or less, sexual, but still, especially when ambiguity is concerned, the viewer, not the artist, decides.<br>

<br />Obviously, to the woman, the photos you took were NOT chaste, as they presented her, as an individual, in a potentially unflattering light. Yes, it's showing that there is some social hypocrisy involved in how women dress in our society. One is supposed to show, but not be viewed. If one is viewed as showing with intention, to a specific man, then that behavior is considered reprehensible. However, that goes back to the point that art, is, yes decided by the viewer. So an absolute chastity is rather impossible. Consider the example of a devout muslim woman wearing a burqua - to the American eye she may seem the pure image of chastity, but she could be exposing something, her eye, folding her cloth in a certain way, that would make the more culturally aware eye say "oh, she's not pure, she's not chaste". So it's possible to even cover someone up, entirely in canvas or some heavy fabric, and have it not be chaste.</p>

<p><br />However, the problem of the jacket really runs into, is philosophy. You're asking if there is an a priori, perfect, image of a naked human, that is devoid of any sexuality - at least, to a majority of people. Then, you use an example of a very real tangible individualized response, to a photo, of that individual, giving priori, or subsequent, knowledge of that specific image. To sum this up more clearly, you're asking if there is such a thing as an ideal, and then giving an example of a very tangible, real, and identifiable person. </p>

<p>This is a logical flaw, so to really truly answer your question you need a different example.</p>

<p>Let us say, you were walking in the forest, and happened upon a person (man or woman doesn't matter), who lived alone, had never had contact with another human being, and went about their daily rituals naked, and unaware that they were naked, further, not caring if they were or not.</p>

<p>An example such as that, purely hypothetical, might given you a better access to if this pure, chaste, nude can actually exist.<br>

Granted we live in a real world, and the pure a priori ideals that philosophers have debated for thousands of years do not apply to those who photograph, as our photos cannot exist without the real world of light and objects. In fact, a "pure" photograph is an utter impossibility, all things physical are by nature flawed on some level. So all photographs, rather than showing beauty, show flaws. However, this argument is heading more toward philosophy, etymology, or neurology.</p>

<p>This debate, which has split into three main threads from which I can see can be summed up as this:</p>

<p>Philosophical: "Can a perfect or pure physical object exist?"</p>

<p>Etymological: "What does chaste, or pure, really mean?"</p>

<p>Neurological: "Is there a specific measurable response when an image is viewed?"</p>

<p>All three paths will lead you to a different answer (or so I surmise), but to argue one, and then the other, and go in circles will lead you nowhere!</p>

<p>So, specify what the rules, and the grounds, for your discussion are, and then, approach it (there are far more than three ways to approach this, for example debating the "male gaze", would lead you into a cultural discussion, outside of philosophy, etymology, or neurology).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you can step back and shed this ecclesiastical cloak, you'll see that there's nothing wrong with nudity and there's nothing wrong with nudity in art or photography.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Richard, I am more in agreement with you than you know, although I think that you perhaps overstate and oversimplify the case a bit. I do not think that you are wrong-headed so much as pessimistic. I see religious inquiry as an ongoing quest, and I am always open to new insights that challenge received opinion, in religion or in anything else.</p>

<p>I do happen to think that there is something sacred about sexuality, however, and about the bonds between lovers. That is as much a product of my romanticism as my religious upbringing, however, at least in my opinion.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Landrum,<br>

One would think, if judging by nothing more than the sheer volume of your own posts, that you might have managed to answer your own question by now. If not, I fear none of us will be able to take you any further down the road toward finding that illusive answer.</p>