The Power and the Glory, Part II (see last May for Part I)

Norma Desmond · May 8, 2010

Jim, though I think looking at form and narrative is, as you suggest, very helpful, I think with many photos and particularly nudes (especially nude studies) the form tells the story and there isn't a clear cut form/content distinction. The story and expression need not always be looked for in the face. It can come in the composition, in the lighting, in focus, in photographic shape and texture. And this is coming from a guy who does mostly portraits and is very aware of what a face can bring to a picture.

_____________________________________

[Not in response to Jim. A more general thought]: Regarding viewers, I don't give equal weight to all viewers' reactions and I don't think a photo is what a viewer makes of it. Just as there are good and bad photographers, there are good and bad viewers. A viewer's insistence on a singular interpretation (indeed, the immediate move to "interpretation") of a photo or facial expression can be an indication that they are seeing through their own imposed filter and/or prejudice rather than through a more open and variable lens.

je ne regrette rien · May 8, 2010

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2143491">Jim Phelps</a> May 07, 2010; 11:01 p.m.

</blockquote>

<blockquote>Lannie, Regarding your original question of “naked vs nude” /emotional impact and how different people perceive the nude. It is useful to break the image down into narrative (the story or message) and form (compositional elements). On the basis of many of the posts here (in part), it seems that the narrative determines the primary viewer reaction to a nude and the form either enhances or detracts from the narrative.</blockquote>

Long ago in this thread we seemed to agree that the viewer's reaction could not realistically be divided into several elements and that the entire being (my concept of being is the widest possible you can imagine) was involved in the visual impact. Now it seems to me that we are trying to break the image into several elements (narrative and form). I believe that the form is absolutely intertwined with the message. And that it is actually impossible to draw a line with some universal validity.

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=423641">Landrum Kelly</a> May 07, 2010; 11:59 p.m. THE THREAD FROM [ETERNAL] HELL: [...] That something might be this: we perhaps do NOT respond emotionally to the image, although we think that we do. There is perhaps a cognitive step in between: we respond emotionally to the IDEA that the image evokes in us. [...] The emotional response then triggers REFLEXIVE RATIONALITY to mirror ourselves and the work perceived, generating an esthetic and/or moral evaluation of the presumed work [...]

</blockquote>

<blockquote>By analogy, if one perceives an image, and has an emotional response to that image, PERHAPS one does not REALLY respond to the image, but to the idea that it evokes.</blockquote>

I believe that here we come closer to an answer. Imagine a Being [capital letter intended] coming from another planet, with completely different biological, sexual, neurological and psychological characteristics and with a completely different sociological and relational reference system. What emotional and rational response would this Being have? That is to say that our response to an image lies in our experience and in our biological features. I believe that it is impossible to single out each different feature and determine the way it influences the perception as a whole. How would we know then that eyes are eyes, spectacles are spectacles, a mirror a mirror, hands hands, a nose a nose, primary sexual characters primary sexual features and secondary sexual features secondary sexual features? In brief, our reactions is based on what we know and what we are.

Norma Desmond · May 8, 2010

"our reactions is based on what we know and what we are."

This seems true from the perspective of the viewer but a lot of this discussion leaves out the role of the photograph and the photographer. I don't just react (based on my biology, genetics, experience, etc.). I am reacting to something. The photographer has made conscious decisions and has included elements and expressions perhaps unconsciously or accidentally as well. I am not responding in a viewer's vacuum. I am responding to deliberate and causal stimuli. I am not just responding to a nude. I am responding to a nude as presented in a photograph by a photographer.

I can type a word on a blank page or look that word up in a dictionary and will attribute a certain very limited and often superficial meaning to it. When I see that same word in a poem, I respond to it differently, yet I bring to it the same genetic makeup, the same biology, and the same past experiences. What's different is the context and the presentation. What's different is also the fullness of meaning that word takes on in the poem. The poem and the poet open up the word. The photograph and the photographer open up the human body presented. It is not only the viewer who is responsible.

I don't find separating the image from the idea of the image or the particular chair from the idea of "chair" (chairness) any more helpful than separating out the form from the content (which you already recognized, Luca). If I thought only the viewer's idea of the image was what mattered, I'd simply click the shutter and present whatever came about from that act and be content to allow the viewer to see what he wants. Maybe I wouldn't bother to take the picture, but would just tell the viewer to go see what I saw in the flesh. But that's not photography for me (except in some cases of pure documentation or forensics).

The camera imposes a vision and that vision is, if done well and with consciousness and some intention, the responsibility of the photographer. The photographer is, in many cases, offering a literate (thanks for that word, Luis, from other posts you've made) viewer more than just the viewer's biology and experience. He's offering that viewer a relationship, a sharing. A photographer can (though he may choose to an extent not to) influence, manipulate, express, symbolize, refer, call forth, etc. A viewer will be affected by these things, whether he knows it or not.

The separation of the image and the idea of the image is a distancing mechanism which would not be the way I'd want to experience a photograph or a work of art. I more often want intimacy, as photographer and as viewer. When I make love, I don't want to be sitting back watching myself and my lover make love. I want to be in the moment and in the flow. That's the relationship I want to making photographs and to viewing them. I don't minimize thought and ideas, but I don't distinguish them from images in terms of both experience and process.

The Being from another galaxy thought-experiment is an interesting one. But I don't make photos with that Being in mind. I make them from my own experiences and vision and with an eye toward at least a general shared emotional response and understanding of the viewers who will see them.

Landrum Kelly · May 8, 2010

VARYING REFLECTIONS ON 'VARY,' 'VARYING,' 'VARIABLE':

Thanks for the responses. I am reminded once again of the fact that the SDQ (the Sexual Drive Quotient--formerly profanely referred to as the, uh, HQ) is a variable, not a constant, and that it varies from person to person and for the same person across time, depending on the degree of satiation, among other possible things.

Overall what I am suggesting is that the simple act of perception is anything but simple, and that we can at least conceptually factor out a number of variables that might act in some sort of sequence--and we might posit as well one or more cognitive and even physiological feedback loops that affect or connect these variables in the conceptual lens/filter even as we keep looking. I only want to draw attention to the variables that do affect varying or differing perceptions over time and among different persons to the same image, whether it be the image captured in a photograph or in the image that we process when we first see a stranger across a crowded room on some enchanted evening. Our first impulse might be to be respond to the image captured in the photo the same way that we respond to the actual person--at least at first glance. Feedback from prior experience surely corrects the misperception quickly, although it might be too late for the fifteen-year-old who has just found his dad's stash of Playboy and who subsequenly experiences his first premature ejaculation. This seems unlikely to happen for the mature male. Indeed, the latter might be content to experience a kind of passive pleasure of perception upon further viewing, which he will no doubt pass off as to his wife as his enjoyment of the articles and the intellectual content which H. Hefner has bounteously bestowed upon their own little castle of love, no doubt enhancing the quality of life there rather than chipping away at it.

How do we apply all this to the original question? "Why does the photographic nude vary so greatly in its impact on us? Why, that is, do our response vary so much? More specifically, why do some nudes appear more naked than others?" We are back to first definitions of the "naked" and the "nude," but, to the extent that the SDG (or HQ) is high, the challenge of trying to appreciate the image in question is likewise going to vary depending on so many other, uh, variables.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 8, 2010

To the extent that all of this might have some relevance to art and esthetics and not merely to strangers across a crowded room some enchanted evening or to the soft porn photos found in Dad's stash of Playboy magazines, we might presume that over time the sexual component and/or desire which seems to inhere in the image (but which really does not) becomes more manageable, such that we become capable of appreciating the image in question more for its artistic merit rather than merely for its inferred sexual content. The force of the latter surely does diminish over time and across culture more or less as Jim has described, but I doubt that it ever completely goes away.

In the same way that Corcoran pronounced to FDR that "You can't take the politics out of politics," one might also say that one cannot take the sex out of sex. Why on earth would one even want to try? So, yes, nudes are ultimately--albeit to varying degrees--about sex.

Thank ya'll for allowin' me to play wit' ye. Thass all y'all, now, you know, includin' the wimmen. I 'preciate it. It's been, uhmm, real.

--Lannie

je ne regrette rien · May 8, 2010

Fred,

<ul>

<li>originally, the thread was about the viewer's perception, so that's what I was reasoning about. I'm prepared to get into the photographer's perception: it deals with the subject being photographed, and not with the viewer.</li>

<li>The photographer's being determines the photograph completely through the intended and casual elements of the photo. But the relationship with the viewer is a mediated and non-linear one. The lovemaking metaphor I believe is not quite suitable in this case.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>I believe the concept of reaction intrinsically requires the reaction to something. From the Latin re-agire, which means "act against". If there is nothing, you don't react, you act.</li>

<li>The thought experiment was just an attempt to find a counterfactual demonstration of my last statement:</li>

</ul>

our reactions is [are] based on what we know and what we are.

</blockquote>

Norma Desmond · May 8, 2010

Luca, the lovemaking metaphor is suitable for me. I'm not surprised it might not work for you or others. It was a metaphor not about my relationship as photographer to viewer and not about my relationship as viewer to photographer. It was a metaphor for my relationship, sometimes, to my subject and, sometimes, to a photograph, both as photographer and as viewer.

I understand the thread is about the viewer's perception. As viewer, I often take the photographer into account, whether I know the photographer or anything about the photographer or not. I will realize the photograph is more than just my perception and reaction and that there may be the intention of a maker behind it. That can affect my perception as much as my biology and my own experience. I might consider the photographer's point of view. I might look for hints, symbols, ambiguities and for other perspectives from which to see the same image. I might wonder whether the photographer did something to get me to see what I see and respond the way I'm responding.

The message of the thought experiment will depend on the savviness of the Being as viewer. He may see the photo and divorce it from its maker and the context, era, and galaxy in which it was made and simply see it from his own perspective as the Being he is. The eyes, as you say, may not be eyes, but something very different. Etc. It may be a complete abstraction to him or may have other symbolic meanings in his own visual language and context. He may also learn what he can about the Beings who produced such photographs and their eras and times and, if he has the understanding capability, may be able to see it from a wider perspective. He may learn about eyes and how humans on earth saw color, etc. and gain a different kind of understanding, whereupon he may respond differently.

I go to a lot of movies from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I notice that half the audience laughs or hisses at so-called outdated material, treatment of women from that era, what we would today see as campy or silly. The other half of the audience sees the movie differently and through the filter of the time and sensibility in which it was made. Do I laugh and am I offended by Douglas Sirk's melodramatic handling of the death of Lana Turner's black friend/maid in the technicolor fabulousness of Imitation of Life or do I cry empathetic tears? Can I get out of myself as a viewer . . . to some extent?

je ne regrette rien · May 8, 2010

Fred,

I convene that the metaphor can work in a perspective different than mine.

I sincerely admire your capability of thinking of the prospective viewer when you take a photo. Me, I sometimes even fail to think of the entire subject I am photographing, let alone the prospective viewer. But that most probably depends on the type of my photography and on the technique.

Since I only use film, my photographing process necessarily takes into account a time lag between the moment I press the shutter and the moment I see the result. This time lag can be weeks, sometimes. So my imagined visual impact stays "virtual" for a long time.

I might have a personal relationship with the viewer, but not through the act itself of photographing.

_____________

Lannie writes:

Thank ya'll for allowin' me to play wit' ye. Thass all y'all, now, you know, includin' the wimmen. I 'preciate it. It's been, uhmm, real.

</blockquote>

Does this mean that he has terminated his participation in this thread?

Landrum Kelly · May 8, 2010

No, Luca, I was just jiving, but I will be out of town for a couple of days.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · May 8, 2010

"Since I only use film, my photographing process necessarily takes into account a time lag between the moment I press the shutter and the moment I see the result."

Luca, thanks for this helpful dialogue. I use digital and there is often that same weeks-long time lag between the time I snap the shutter and the time I see the result. I don't often look at what I've taken on the little screen on the back of the camera and don't get to process things, sometimes, for quite some time after the day of shooting. My eventual result comes from a sometimes-lengthy period of processing my photos as well. Like you, consideration of the viewer may not occur at the time of photographing for me. Also, I wasn't as much emphasizing here the importance of the viewer to me as photographer as I was the importance of the fact of a photographer to me as viewer. As photographer, when I do consider the viewer, it is as likely to be when I'm processing and fine tuning as when I'm shooting.

I'm with you on not necessarily consciously thinking even of the entire subject of the photo, or for that matter, the viewer, myself, or anything else when I'm taking the picture. But these things, for me, are at work because of things I think about when I'm lying in bed, talking to others, walking around town with my camera at my side, etc. There are also accidents. But they are accidents that happen to ME because I am THERE. These considerations that I speak of go into a mix, not always consciously, not always directly at the time of shooting. I do believe that what I learn and come to in this forum, for example, (and lots of other stuff) though I may not bring it all to my consciousness when I shoot, has an affect (especially if I am open to letting it) on my photographing. The viewer may be there with me, figuratively, but s/he's rarely intrusive. Same with the photographer when I'm a viewer. As a viewer, I have some awareness, conscious or not, that a photographer's influence on what I'm looking at is significant.

don_essedi · May 8, 2010

"...the theory that I hear the feminists bandying about..." "...Thass all y'all, now, you know, includin' the wimmen. . I 'preciate it. It's been, uhmm, real."

As John wrote, the women have left the room. It is considered, at best, bad form to criticize or ridicule someone who is not around to reply, but I'll let that nastiness pass.

I think "the wimmin" and your God in Matt 5:28 are on about the same thing.

Hercules: Not many women come this way, not as beautiful as you. Iole: How simple men are. As if I were a flower or an animal. (Hercules, 1957)

Fred, you may have been more right than you know that the wrath of Achilles is relevant to this thread.

Norma Desmond · May 8, 2010

To bring it back to the basis of this thread and to the nude . . . one of the reasons I want to emphasize a viewer's consideration of the photographer (the Being who might bring a different set of eyes to a photograph but yet still realize that the photographer might have had a perspective, culture, and way of seeing worth considering or learning about) comes back to empathy and how I view photographs. Not only can I empathize with the photographer, as a viewer, I can empathize with the subject and with the photograph itself. As I said, it's why I can view a photograph of a nude female and relate to the sexuality of it as well as the sensuality of it, though I may not experience those things as directly as some male viewers. And it's why I expect of at least some male viewers that they will look at male nudes with an open mind and a willingness to experience it with an empathic response that allows them to get past themselves and their own biology (or culturally-induced uptightness and denial) to an extent.

Norma Desmond · May 8, 2010

Don, I was writing as you posted. Yes.

JPPhoto1664880217 · May 8, 2010

Fred,

If form produces the emotional response in imagery, doesn’t this imply one should get a strong emotional response from pure abstracts (which are by definition all form and no narrative)? Jackson Pollack’s work would be a good example of this. Realize that no nude can be considered a pure abstract because it is possible to discern what was photographed. In fact, few if( any) photographs are pure abstracts.

Norma Desmond · May 8, 2010

"If form produces the emotional response"

Jim, I would say it a little differently. Form can produce the emotional response and/or can significantly add to the emotional response. Often, the elements of form (shape, line, texture, light, etc.) put out emotional sparks in a photo as much as the content. I don't often, but I think many people do actually get a lot of emotional response from pure abstracts. I also think many people find (whether intended or not by the artist) narratives in abstracts that help them with emotion. When I hear people talk about abstracts (even painted ones that aren't based on reality as photographs are), they talk about what they feel like they are seeing, what their imaginations are telling them they're seeing.

I'm in a discussion now on the photo of the week (and getting into some trouble because of it) where I'm claiming what I'd be more comfortable claiming here, which is that I find it virtually impossible to separate out form from content. The shapes and lines of a face are the expression of the face. If I call it a nose is it content? But if I call it that triangular shape in the center of the sphere is it then form? I think form is content and content is form, though we can certainly define differences. Kind of like "the medium is the message". Sure, we all know what "medium" is and we know what "message" is and we speak of them differently, but they really do morph into each other, just as I think form and content do.

Often, when I look at nude studies, there is an abstract quality to them that's as significant as the fact that I'm looking at flesh. I hear many people metaphorically describe nude studies as "landscapes". That's because they are able to abstract what they see and it becomes a more "formal" rather than content-specific perception. When I work with nudes and even with faces, I am often responding emotionally as much to form as to content and, as I say, I often find little distinction between the two. Sometimes I feel as if I am photographing lines, shapes, colors, and light when I am in fact photographing what I or others might otherwise refer to as chairs and tables.

Landrum Kelly · May 9, 2010

Fred, you may have been more right than you know that the wrath of Achilles is relevant to this thread.

</blockquote>

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, Don.

Oh, and by the way, my affectation of a southern accent was not denigrating to women, nor was anything else in that post intended to disparage women in any way. There was no "ridicule" and no "nastiness" in what I said, nor any ill will. Were you perchance attributing to me your own motives?

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 9, 2010

Fred, you may have been more right than you know that the wrath of Achilles is relevant to this thread.

</blockquote>

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, Don.

Oh, and by the way, my affectation of a southern accent was not denigrating to women, from where I sit, nor did I ridicule anyone or say anything nasty.

--Lannie

don_essedi · May 9, 2010

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, Don."

I'll ask why you bother to post to a philosophy forum when you are so unwilling to engage in dialogue. Your profound lack of curiosity in anything besides "moi" is arrogant. It was your proof text I'm asking about (Matt 5:28). Why can't you reply to the questions?

Landrum Kelly · May 9, 2010

Jim Phelps posted the following back on May 2:

As you suggested earlier, it is highly unlikely that you would “happen upon” someone nude in the southeastern US. However, in Europe (and some beaches in other parts of the US), this is not uncommon. For instance, in Munich, Germany, public nudity is very accepted in certain public places such as the English Gardens. Nudity is common on many of the French Beaches. It has been my experience that the more this is accepted, the more artistic and less sexual the nude is viewed. This would seem to imply that, although nudity is a necessary condition for sexual stimulation (at least in the male), it is not a sufficient condition and that as exposure to nudity becomes more common, it becomes less sexual. It would also seem to imply that the more the viewer sees the nude as sexual the less he sees/appreciates it artistically. This would seem cause even a wider apparent variation in the perception of the nude. If the viewer’s emotional response is primarily sexual, all other emotional responses could be significantly surpressed.

</blockquote>

In a related thread, Luca posted the following on the morning of May 8:

Imagine a Being [capital letter intended] coming from another planet, with completely different biological, sexual, neurological and psychological characteristics and with a completely different sociological and relational reference system. What emotional and rational response would this Being have?

That is to say that our response to an image lies in our experience and in our biological features. I believe that it is impossible to single out each different feature and determine the way it influences the perception as a whole.

How would we know then that eyes are eyes, spectacles are spectacles, a mirror a mirror, hands hands, a nose a nose, primary sexual characters primary sexual features and secondary sexual features secondary sexual features?

In brief, our reaction is based on what we know and what we are.

</blockquote>

It occurred to me this morning that the perceived sexual impact of the nude form, whether in art or in life, depends indeed on a variety of cultural factors, but there is something more, I believe: the perceived sexual IMPLICATIONS of the appearance of the nude form.

Perhaps I should not use the word "perceived" here, since we then get into the various ways that we refer to "perception," not a linguistic avenue I wish to pursue at this point. Perhaps I should instead speak of the INFERRED sexual IMPLICATIONS of the appearance of the nude form, whether in life or in art.

What I mean is this: we can react to a nude image (and not just a nude person) with some kind of sexual response, but we are more likely to do so if our past HISTORY (shaped by culture, of course) implies the imminent possibility of sexual activity in similar or analogous situations. (I am throughout all this postulating that our subconscious mind's interpretation of the sense data might trigger reaction by the autonomic nervous system before the conscious mind has sorted out the possibilities inhering in the situation--and possibly before the conscious mind has even sorted out that "this a photo of a nude woman, not a real nude woman standing in front of me.")

What I am trying to get at is to understand differing cultural as well as individual reactions to the nude person as well as to the image that represents a real person (generically or specifically). The anthropological data suggest that nudity per se does NOT have implications of imminent sexual activity in many cultures, NEITHER IN LIFE NOR IN ART, although it does seem to have such implications very frequently in American culture.

Please bear with me as I try to relate all the above to my earlier diagram and modify the diagram accordingly for certain cultural or situational contingencies. Here is the original diagram as I posted it:

PERCEPTION of IMAGE ---> IDEA ----> EMOTIONAL RESPONSE ----> REFLECTION AND EVALUATION ----> MORAL/ESTHETIC JUDGMENT

Let us focus now on the "emotional response" phase (and following), with the contingency of the encounter of the viewer and the viewed (in real life more than in art) in a culture where the nude form does suggest the possibility of imminent sexual activity:

PERCEPTION of IMAGE ---> IDEA ----> EMOTIONAL RESPONSE ----> REFLECTION AND EVALUATION ----> INFERENCE OF LIKELY SEXUAL OPPORTUNITY OR ACTIVITY

Although the latter diagram has here to do with a possible sexual reponse to a real encounter between, say, a man and a woman (or, more generally, between two potential sexual partners), it might suggest the possibility that the subconscious mind combined with the autonomic nervous system might mistakenly INFER a possible sexual situation before the conscious mind has had time to catch up.

We can yet go one step further and ask what happens IN A REPRESSIVE CULTURE when the encounter takes place. If the encounter is between two real persons who are potential sexual partners, then even the conscious mind might infer imminent sexual activity as a possible outcome. We might postulate that, in a culture where a nude sexual encounter is seen almost always to imply possible sexual activity, the conceptual lens (through which the nude form is viewed) may be modified through cultural habituation to this idea to imply that the incoming sense data of the nude form do indeed ALMOST ALWAYS imply imminent sexual activity. (Exceptions include going to the doctor, etc.)

If so, then the mere viewing of the nude image, as in a photo, might THROUGH CULTURAL HABITUATION (as described above) come to imply sexual activity as well--or at least to suggest that possible interpretation of the image of the nude form. In another culture or context, such viewing might not be interpreted to mean anything of the sort.

If so, then even after sorting out that the image is merely an image and not the perception of real, live sexual partner, even CONTINUED VIEWING of a work of art might be interpreted as a SEXUAL ACT and not merely an ESTHETIC EXPERIENCE.

It might thus be that it is not always our immediate reaction to the image that determines our tendency to view the image as "nude" or "naked" (to the extent that the latter might be the more sexually loaded term), but even our prolonged and reflective reaction to the image might as well.

This is heavy stuff, and trying to write it quickly on one draft invites errors on my part as well as possible errors of misreading on the part of others (due to my lack of clarity or completeness), but I hope that what I am trying to say does suggest, however inadequately, a possible answer to the question as I originally posed it. I apologize for the redundancies.

All of this takes me back to Jim Phelps' words as cited again at the outset of this thread:

as exposure to nudity becomes more common, it becomes less sexual.

</blockquote>

That is (as I read Jim), more exposure to the nude form in society does not so much desensitize or damage the sexual response as it changes our INTERPRETATION of the possible sexual significance of nudity--whether in art or in life. Jim did not say precisely that, but what I have written is one possible interpretation of the possible implications of his observation.

What I am ultimately saying is that nothing necessarily "sexual" qua "lustful" inheres in the nude form itself--neither in art or in life. This would seem to be a truism, but, if it is true, then a possible corollary is that viewing of the nude in art is not necessarily some depraved activity that implies the degradation of women or anything else particularly negative. This conclusion is NOT trivial, although it starts from a seemingly trivially or obviously true premise.

This might yet seem to be a trivial or obvious conclusion, but I do not think that it is, given the reactivity on both sides of the ethical debate on nude photography--and the viewing of such. That is, in my opinion, a certain degree of factoring out of the nudity from its possible sexual qua lustful implications can and does occur in art as well as in life.

In other words, Jim Phelps nailed it: "[A]lthough nudity is a necessary condition for sexual stimulation (at least in the male), it is not a sufficient condition and that as exposure to nudity becomes more common, it becomes less sexual. It would also seem to imply that the more the viewer sees the nude as sexual the less he sees/appreciates it artistically. This would seem cause even a wider apparent variation in the perception of the nude. "

Luca offers an important qualifier: "[O]ur response to an image lies in our experience and in our biological features. I believe that it is impossible to single out each different feature and determine the way it influences the perception as a whole."

Although no one is going to have the last word on these matters, I think that whatever else we have to say on this has to be more or less a footnote to what Jim and Luca have already said as quoted immediately above, and at the outset of this post--with all due respect and gratitude for the input of others who might think (at least in part) along similar lines.

Fred, I dare not try to speak for you. You can speak and have spoken eloquently for yourself.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 9, 2010

"Ask not for whom the bell tolls, Don."

I'll ask why you bother to post to a philosophy forum when you are so unwilling to engage in dialogue. Your profound lack of curiosity in anything besides "moi" is arrogant. It was your proof text I'm asking about (Matt 5:28). Why can't you reply to the questions?

</blockquote>

Don, it is a busy weekend. Are you asking whether Jesus would agree with the feminists? I cannot say for sure, since very few teachings on this or related issues are attributed to Jesus--and not all of the feminists speak with one voice on this issue. Most of the repressive teachings in Christianity seem either to be from Paul or from those who have read Paul a certain way.

In any case, nothing attributed to Jesus addresses nudity per se. The relevant teachings (looking at a woman "to lust after her") seem to me to be about what is in one's "heart." The post that I just put up addresses the larger issue of whether "purity of heart" is possible upon viewing the nude. I hope that it is clear by now that I believe that it is possible to do so, although one's likely opinion on all this is going to depend on (in most cases) one's personal and cultural history (as noted in reference to Jim's and Luca's posting). So. . . you might read the above long post by me as addressing the underlying issues which bear upon the interpretation of Jesus or any other moral teacher. What Jesus meant or implied is fair theological game, as far as I am concerned--nor do I think that it is meaningless or irrelevant to ask what Jesus would say on these issues. As a Christian (and not just by upbringing), I would really, really like to know. My Christian faith has evolved far from my fundamentalist upbringings, but it is still a vital force in my life--and I NEVER try to slip off of the opportunity to address issues having theological implications. Here is my last book-length treatment on Christian ethics, although I focus more on issues of violence than of sexuality:

http://www.philosophicalquestions.org/PAXtitlePAGE.html

In any case, I am not trying to evade your issue(s). I am outspoken, not one who puts his light "under a bushel," as the Good Book says. I welcome the insights from that book, although I am now far, far from being the biblical inerrantist that I was raised to be. I welcome the opportunity to interact with you, but as of 9:30 last night was still mowing my front lawn in the dark (well, with the help of a street lamp). I respond when I can. I value your questions and input. As I said, it is a busy weekend.

If I do not respond immediately to any other posts, it is because I will be at my mother's house in South Carolina the rest of the day, just as soon as I log off and drive down.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 9, 2010

Why can't you reply to the questions?

</blockquote>

Don, this thread has been "going" now since April 20--nineteen days ago!

I have responded numerous times. How long does my obligation to respond last?

--Lannie

don_essedi · May 9, 2010

"I have responded numerous times. How long does my obligation to respond last?"

You have no obligation whatsoever. However, you keep posting and questions arise and are asked and you have not responded to me. If all you are doing is shooting the breeze about nude photos, my apologies. I thought this was an active forum.

Landrum Kelly · May 9, 2010

It is an active forum, Don, and I have tried (and am still trying) to stay active in it. Surely, however, it is not out of line to try to keep returning to the original question, even as other participants are free to raise other issues--or to redefine the question.

In any case, I am sorry that you see me as just "shooting the breeze" about nude photography. I thought that the original question related to nude photography, specifically to our varying reactions to viewing nudes

Fred has expanded the discussion to considerations of the making of such photos, which I think is a vital expansion of the original topic--since creation of the photo is ultimately of more interest to photographers than is perception of the photo, although the two processes are intimately related. That emphasis on creation likewise reflects Fred's and John's attempts to keep this forum about photography, especially the making of photographs--a very good corrective to my sometimes obscure philosophical wanderings, I daresay.

You have likewise raised provocative questions and challenges which extend to other (but related) issues--sometimes offering the most penetrating questions here. I am grateful to you as well--and to Luca, John, Jim, Luis, Julie, Zoe, Rebecca, Phylo, and others who have contributed and who might still be following the thread, for all I know. Fred's contributions bear special mention, since he has at times almost single-handedly re-infused the thread with new life.

For the record, I still value the input of Zoe Wiseman and Rebecca Brown as well as Julie--and I sincerely wish that they were still commenting. My frustration with Rebecca's final (exit) post does not blind me to her insights. I was frankly hurt a bit by her leaving, since I thought that the thread had some redeeming value--and did not reflect a single point of view. Whether those women are still following the thread I do not know. I do know that the thread is better to the extent that it reflects other than a purely male perspective. I am sorry that I cannot get Pnina to write a post or two, but she has her reasons for not doing so.

Thanks for writing, Don. Now I really do have to leave, before the day slips away.

--Lannie

don_essedi · May 9, 2010

"Don, it is a busy weekend. Are you asking whether Jesus would agree with the feminists?"

No. I wrote: "I think "the wimmin" and your God in Matt 5:28 are on about the same thing."

The "wimmen" in:

"...Thass all y'all, now, you know, includin' the wimmen. . I 'preciate it. It's been, uhmm, real."

I think I read this correctly, that you are referring to posters in this thread, including the women posters, and not "feminists" generally. And I did not ask about "Jesus" generally but Jesus in the text you quoted: Matt 5:28.

"The relevant teachings (looking at a woman "to lust after her") seem to me to be about what is in one's "heart." The post that I just put up addresses the larger issue of whether "purity of heart" is possible upon viewing the nude."

The issue in 5:28 is the meaning of "lust" and the meaning of "heart", as well as a question about the little word "already" and the big word 'adultery'

"...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

'Lust' in the NT is one of those 'thumos' words. It refers to impulses, powerful ones. The heart (kardia, here) is the place where impulses, passions, feelings, emotions are held or reside. Achilles wrath is in his lust to kill Agamemnon, for example. "And the anger came on Peleus' son, and within his shaggy breast the heart was divided two ways" as to whether to kill him or not, and he is drawing his sword, when the goddess intervenes.

The Iliad (and much of Greek myth) is full of examples of poor impulse control, and so is much of history. Jesus seems to assume that the impulse (lust) held in the heart has odds of being acted out, which is why the "already" is there -- it is similar to what the Iliadic gods can do, and Athene does here: staunch the impulse. Jesus is acting here as a 'god'.

And why the word "adultery", a word one associates with marriage? Why not 'fornication'? Does Matt 5:28 permit me to lust after a parthenos? I think the impulse might lead to adultery if any of the parties is married, but a more inclusive understanding of 'lust' here is to see the impulse being satisfied in an act of rape.

And rape is among the concerns of "the wimmen". I made the association of sex to the comic; they made the association of sex to violence, meaning the potential violence in male sexuality (and no matter it is straight or gay). That's why I think they and Jesus are "going on about the same thing". And if you accept my understanding of 5:28, then you are relieved of your concern regarding "lustful looking" (unless of course you stalk the women you lust after). Let's say 'lusting in your heart' has little or nothing to do with indulging in mastubatory fantasies.

luis_g · May 9, 2010

It's not just JC, there;s nothing in the OT ordering Christians to wear clothing, either, excepting for when it is due to poverty, or related to sin/indecent exposure.

"When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, ... "Let's not tear [the undergarment]," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it...."

Yeah, but was He nude, naked, neither, or both?

Sign In

The Power and the Glory, Part II (see last May for Part I)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in