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

fate_faith_change_chains · May 9, 2010

<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Santa_teresa_di_bernini_03.JPG">Ecstasy, or when the spiritual meets the sensual.</a>

Norma Desmond · May 10, 2010

"If the viewer’s emotional response is primarily sexual, all other emotional responses could be significantly surpressed." --Jim Phelps, requoted by Lannie

Why? My own sexual responses to anything seem to heighten many of my other senses and emotions. Sex is not repressive for me. My sexuality (and sexual excitement) tends to liberate and inspire me.

"in a culture where the nude form does suggest the possibility of imminent sexual activity . . ." --Lannie

There is a sexual component/association to nudity. This may have nothing to do with the possibility of imminent sexual activity. Back in Junior High School, I learned from having erections almost at the drop of a hat that my being aroused or focused on sex likely (and sadly at the time -- LOL) had nothing to do with imminent sex.

Empathy, metaphor, and symbolism: To view a nude is not to have sex, and not necessarily to think about having sex. Nudes have a sympathetic and metaphorical relationship to sex. . . . I sometimes use and respond to the symbol of the cross. Not because I think I am going to find God. Symbols work associatively and conventionally but they suggest no imminent action. Nudity is associative and conventional and not a suggestion of action.

"It would also seem to imply that the more the viewer sees the nude as sexual the less he sees/appreciates it artistically." --Jim Phelps requoted by Lannie

I see this as a lack of respect for sex. There's nothing unartistic about human drives. Art can be sexual and sex can be artistic. There's no basis for the assumption that as one increases, the other decreases. It seems prudish to me. I might give some credence to a reformulation: "the more the viewer sees the nude as pornographic, the less she sees it artistically." Every time "as sex increases, art decreases" comes up, I feel sex is being treated pornographically.

" 'purity of heart' is possible upon viewing the nude" --Lannie

I take it purity of heart upon viewing the nude would be accomplished with the elimination of sex. Perhaps a sexual deviant would need to purge his sexual desires in order to achieve purity. Healthy sexual beings can be pure of heart. (I generally reject the use of "pure" because I think it's bogus and unattainable, but for the purposes of discussion I know what is meant by it). The need to view a nude absent something sexual doesn't suggest purity to me. It suggests uptightness.

One thing I agree with is that there's nothing inherent in the nude. But that's the case with everything. Everything is overlaid with context, culture, history, etc. But, because sex is not inherent in the nude doesn't mean it should or can be escaped. Just because the Being from the other galaxy might not respond that way doesn't mean the Being from this galaxy can adopt the naive stance of the Being from the other one. As has been said, I can't wipe the slate clean. Purity is inhuman. I think it's unattainable but even if it were attainable, I think it would be undesirable.

Landrum Kelly · May 10, 2010

A Brief History of Nakeness (book title)

http://chronicle.com/article/Nota-Bene-Ugly-Laws-Naked/65404/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

I haven't read it (the book) yet--just saw this (the article) in my inbox.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 10, 2010

HOLY!

Jesus seems to assume that the impulse (lust) held in the heart has odds of being acted out

</blockquote>

That (the possibility of acting out) might be the whole point of Jesus' injunction not to "lust in the heart," Don, but it is also possible that the teaching might have rested upon some assumption of the sacredness of the nude form--something so "holy" that only the "authorized" person(s) was/were authorized to view it. If such were the case, "lusting" (regardless of whether it was acted out or not) might have been akin to a kind of desecration or sacrilege of the "holy place" (holy OBJECT???).

The use of the "veil" in the Bible is likewise interesting. Priests alone were allowed to go behind the veil of the temple in ancient times, the "holy of holies," and the story of Jesus' (the holy man's) crucifixion (at least on one account) makes the claim that, at the moment of his death, the "veil of the temple" was rent (torn) from top to bottom. So, the "veil of the temple" combined with the idea of the body as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" (I'm not sure where that is found) suggests the possibility that there was a ritualistic component to being dressed--and likewise a possible ritualistic component in the idea of the husband "unveiling" his new bride.

In any case, the clothed body is "veiled," not really covered in many instances. We all know that the larger contours of the human form are often visible (sometimes remarkably visible) in spite of clothing--and often a great amount of skin is as well.

In any case, if "lusting after a woman" is seen to be a problem, for whatever reason, then it is clear that lusting is possible toward a fully dressed woman, and not merely toward a skimpily dressed woman--or even a nude/naked woman.

Jim's point suggests that lusting and nudity have little to do with each other--or at least are factorable. In the "Album" link on this site below, I do not see a lot of evidence of lusting or sexual leering, but nudity or nakedness are evident in abundance:

http://www.terra.es/personal/arealo/

(The "nudist camp" or colony seems a rather quaint concept or institution today.)

So, apart from protection from the elements and hygiene, what is the real deal about clothing? Something as ethereal as sacredness,or something as basic as male jealousy and the protection of male "property" rights and claims to exclusivity of sexual access to the female(s) under his control?

I see "control" as the operative word here. Perhaps nude photography or even the "male gaze" is not the real villain where the impulse to control is concerned. Perhaps the real impulse to control was manifested first of all in norms about nudity imposed upon women BY MEN. The same might be true for teachings about adultery. There is little evidence that women were the originators of these norms for the display of the body or for sexual activity. Men created those norms (unless one believes the story about the stone tablets. . . .).

I do not think that these considerations are very far afield from the original question, since repression and control have always figured largely where sexuality is concerned--and where perceptions are concerned as well.

Thoughts of Eden in the Bible also come to mind. The presumption of the author(s) of the Genesis fable was that people can be both naked and innocent only if they are unaware of their nakedness (in a public setting). By "partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil," they became "ashamed." They became self-consciously aware of their nakedness, as the story goes, and thus began the phenomenon of bodily and sexual shame and guilt.

Is there any natural shame for the body, or is such shame purely a result of cultural baggage?

Jesus the radical Jew did in any case challenge a lot of things ("You have been taught. . . but I say unto you" a usage found several times in Matthew, chapter five). One wonders what his real views might have been about nudity and even sexuality. Did he offer a challenge to prevailing norms there as well?

Jesus was no Christian, in any case. He was a Jew.

--Lannie

</blockquote>

Norma Desmond · May 10, 2010

"If such were the case, "lusting" (regardless of whether it was acted out or not) might have been akin to a kind of desecration or sacrilege of the "holy place" (holy OBJECT???)." --Lannie

LOL. I want to read that like Robin might say it to the Caped Crusader: Holy object, Batman! The quoted statement provides some of the reasons why I appreciate those who explore the unholiness and lack of purity in the nude. I love so-called holiness being undermined. Photographers and artists may ignite important imaginative and creative human sparks that supposedly divine holiness attempts to hold at bay. Holiness, to me, is more repressive than sex.

(I don't understand the relevance in this context of whether Jesus was a Jew or a Christian.)

je ne regrette rien · May 10, 2010

Guys, you're tough.

How did we get from nude to porn, from sex to lust, from lust to art?

And why do we mix up personal reactions with universal explanations?

Norma Desmond · May 10, 2010

"And why do we mix up personal reactions with universal explanations?" -Luca

Because this is a philosophy of photography forum. If I see some universality in philosophy, I see photography as applied and personal. Personal reactions and universal explanations are, to me, a good combination. But, Luca, you are welcome to approach this forum -- as I'm sure you know -- any way you like, regardless of what others are doing. When I write Philosophy papers, I will often slip into a "we" (universal) voice. Here, because it's personal for me, the way I photograph and see photographs, I tend to stick to how it works for "me" and question others on how it works for them.

je ne regrette rien · May 10, 2010

Interesting perspective.

Landrum Kelly · May 10, 2010

" 'purity of heart' is possible upon viewing the nude" --Lannie

I take it purity of heart upon viewing the nude would be accomplished with the elimination of sex. Perhaps a sexual deviant would need to purge his sexual desires in order to achieve purity. Healthy sexual beings can be pure of heart. (I generally reject the use of "pure" because I think it's bogus and unattainable, but for the purposes of discussion I know what is meant by it). The need to view a nude absent something sexual doesn't suggest purity to me. It suggests uptightness.

</blockquote>

Fred, for what it's worth, my words in that section were written after I had tried to make a distinction between "sexual" and "lusting." Perhaps using "lusting" in place of "sexual" is simply a regress, perhaps not. Since the English word "lust" (with a sexual connotation) came from the German word "lust" (a noun with the general meaning of "pleasure," not just sexual pleasure), Jesus' reference to "looking at a woman to lust after her" might have meant no more than looking at her so as to enjoy her sexually. Of course, one thing leads to another, as Don seems to be reminding us, but it is obvious that looking for sexual enjoyment would not necessarily require that the woman (or whoever) be nude.

In any case, it is possible that Jesus saw this visual enjoyment qua lusting as evil in and of itself for the married man: to look for the express purpose of gaining sexual enjoyment might have been seen as the very essence of sexual infidelity--the "internal" side of infidelity dealing with "the heart" qua one's motive. In other words, any "sexual enjoyment" with a person not one's mate might have been viewed as infidelity. I think that it is the conventional Christian view today, although (based upon what Pnina has said) perhaps it is the traditional Jewish view as well. I do not know.

Is that way of looking at it a symptom of being "uptight," or simply a kind of ethical idealism in sexual ethics?

Back to the larger point: Yes, I do think that admiring the nude does not necessarily imply "lusting" or getting "that kind" of sexual enjoyment from the looking. I still cannot quite say, however, that looking at a beautiful woman is for me simply like looking at a good horse. It isn't.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 10, 2010

I don't understand the relevance in this context of whether Jesus was a Jew or a Christian.

</blockquote>

Fred, it could mean that perhaps Jesus spoke as an individual, not as the founder of a cult or a church, as the Christians say, but I meant simply that he probably would not agree with many Christians today on very much of anything--and that might include his views on nudity and the nude in photography and other art.

--Lannie

</blockquote>

je ne regrette rien · May 10, 2010

I am starting to believe that photography is the realm of individualism.

<ol>

<li>we have the universe of the photographer and the myriad of elements making a photo: intended and casual, seen and unseen. Emotions, experiences, reactions;</li>

<li>we have the universe of the photograph itself and the subject(s), with the same intended and casual elements, the relationship of the photographer with the photo, with the subject;</li>

<li>we have the universe of the viewer's reaction, with emotions, combination of being, experience.</li>

</ol>

The combination of these three universes is probably the most unexplorable terrain, made even more complex by gender issues.

___________________

By the way, I went to see Helmut Newton's museum in Berlin last summer. "They are coming", which by the way is two photos, not one, is beautiful.

Lots of the other photos I found boring. Will later explain why.

don_essedi · May 10, 2010

"but it is also possible that the teaching might have rested upon some assumption of the sacredness of the nude form--something so "holy" that only the "authorized" person(s) was/were authorized to view it. If such were the case, "lusting" (regardless of whether it was acted out or not) might have been akin to a kind of desecration or sacrilege of the "holy place" (holy OBJECT???)."

I can't think of any text from anywhere at the time that makes such a case -- from later, yes, and maybe they impute it to Jesus or God.

"So, apart from protection from the elements and hygiene, what is the real deal about clothing? Something as ethereal as sacredness,or something as basic as male jealousy and the protection of male "property" rights and claims to exclusivity of sexual access to the female(s) under his control?"

Control of reproductive rights. If you consider that for most of human history power meant having a lot of men: soldiers, slaves, workers. The way to get men ultimately is from women. Clothing exists to deter lust, to keep others from lustfully looking at your property and attempting to take it.

"Thoughts of Eden in the Bible also come to mind. The presumption of the author(s) of the Genesis fable was that people can be both naked and innocent only if they are unaware of their nakedness (in a public setting). By "partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil," they became "ashamed.""

I wrote on May 3 12:35

"It is obvious that "naked" and "more naked than" means something more to you than the common meaning. "her look of wide-eyed innocence" seems to be part of the "more naked than". Nakedness becomes fused to "innocence" and then at some point in the shift to "divinity", I find myself bumping my head into the Tree of Life. Nakedness (I'm giving you a blow by blow description of how I read you)...nakedness is Edenic, before sexuality."

We however are post-Edenic. I think a project to achieve "Edenicness" is a kind of pagan project rather than Christian. Anyway, no, you can't view photographs of nudes who turn you on in an Edenic way.

Landrum Kelly · May 10, 2010

I can't think of any text from anywhere at the time that makes such a case -- from later, yes, and maybe they impute it to Jesus or God.

</blockquote>

I can't refute you, Don.

To the extent that the New Testament era was influenced by previous Jewish traditions and teachings, however, perhaps the story of Noah and his sons might give some indication of reverence for the body--although the context was hardly sexual. Here is a passage from Genesis:

20And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

23And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.

I am not suggesting that any of this actually happened, of course, only that it was part of the scriptural heritage that was passed down to Jesus' day and beyond. So, I am not sure that the idea of the sacredness of the body was in any sense a new concept in the Christian and post-Christian eras--although I agree that there is no evidence of the specific interpretation that I gave it vis-a-vis husband and wife (or, more generally, between two mates).

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 10, 2010

We however are post-Edenic. I think a project to achieve "Edenicness" is a kind of pagan project rather than Christian. Anyway, no, you can't view photographs of nudes who turn you on in an Edenic way.

</blockquote>

Since Eden never existed, and Adam and Eve and Satan are mythical creatures, it would not be so much an Edenic project as a nonsensical project. It is not in any case my project.

Apart from questions of literal historical truth, however, am I suggesting the possibility of viewing the nude in a non-sexual (or at least non-lustful) kind of way?

Absolutely--but I am only suggesting it. I do not know myself if it is possible. We do not, that is, always know our own motives. I do question my own, as I question my own assumptions and arguments in this thread.

My first premise is and always must be, "I could be wrong."

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · May 10, 2010

I am starting to believe that photography is the realm of individualism.

</blockquote>

Surely it is, Luca, at least with regard to the creative impulse. It need not be the kind of individualism that is seen in ethical individualism or any other form of egoism. There are all kinds of individualism, in my opinion, including atomistic individualism which is almost a denial of the social self. I do not see photography in any of its manifestations as having any link to any of those traditions by any logical necessity.

--Lannie

don_essedi · May 10, 2010

"Apart from questions of literal historical truth, however, am I suggesting the possibility of viewing the nude in a non-sexual (or at least non-lustful) kind of way?"

Lannie, as I've written before, you have given proof it is possible. You do not view male nudes in a lustful or sexual way. I gather there are nudes of women, as well, that you do not view lustfully or sexually. The nudes that you are attracted to can be the only ones you are asking that of...yet, if you could view them in that way, they would not attract you and would then have the same status for you as male nudes do. What attracts you is nothing purely aesthetic or artistic, otherwise the other kinds of nudes would attract you as well. You see the contradiction or incommensurability of what you are asking?

Norma Desmond · May 10, 2010

"What attracts you is nothing purely aesthetic or artistic, otherwise the other kinds of nudes would attract you as well. You see the contradiction or incommensurability of what you are asking?" --Don

Thanks, Don. My point exactly.

I began making just this point about a week ago, when I said "He [Lannie] is talking about the beauty and truth of the nude and the nude removed from sexuality and wanting to consider the nude on a different plane yet male nudes are not his thing." I never got a response to this. How can male nudes be so rejected and avoided if the supposed striving is for non-sexual experiences of the nude? If anything, I'd think appreciating male nudes would be an obvious honest and genuine beginning toward Lannie's stated goal.

je ne regrette rien · May 10, 2010

Don, What attracts you is nothing purely aesthetic or artistic, otherwise the other kinds of nudes would attract you as well. You see the contradiction or incommensurability of what you are asking?

</blockquote>

I believe this already came up in the thread. I'd rather adhere to the incommensurability of the original question.

Lannie, Surely it is, Luca, at least with regard to the creative impulse.

</blockquote>

I meant individualistic in a global sense. If one Being likes the photograph, then it's good. Helmut Newton was surely an artist, but his exhibition at the Museum in Berlin - plenty of famous female nudes - I found boring for the large part.

Norma Desmond · May 10, 2010

I admit I'm having some trouble grasping what you're saying, Luca. But it piques my interest so I'll try, and hope you'll follow up with me. It seems to have some potential wealth.

"If one Being likes the photograph, then it's good." --Luca

Why is this the case, Luca? I'm not sure why photographs would be different from anything else. "If one person likes taking poison, then taking poison is good." Would this statement be acceptable to you? It kind of makes value and judgment meaningless in my eyes. To me, meaning, value, and judgment are shared, not individual. I don't find "good" to be a solipsistic concept.

I photograph as much for relationships as for my individual participation. I, myself, do get something out of photographing and viewing. Much of that comes from my relationship to subjects, my relationship to the photos I view, my relationship (distant thought it may be) to viewers.

My thinking something is good doesn't make it good. For God, maybe. ("And it was Good.") But I'm no god!

Landrum Kelly · May 10, 2010

There is no contradiction in what I am saying. I can view her as a woman, i.e., sexually, without it being lustfully--I think.

I could be wrong, of course, but, if so, it would be because I am in a state of denial, not because I am being illogical. I can see the logical structure of my own argument. What I cannot see is the truth of falsehood of my basic assumption: that awareness of her sex does not ipso facto imply that I am looking at her lustfully. For the moment it is an a priori speculative assumption. I cannot prove it.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · May 10, 2010

Lannie, I hope you will answer my question and Don's question. In our last two posts, I think we were clear. If you are interested in non-sexual nudes, why does the sex of the nude seem so crucial to you that you have stated that male nudes are not your thing?

Landrum Kelly · May 10, 2010

Fred, let me make clear that I am distinguishing between sexual and lustful.

I can enjoy watching a woman walking down a sidewalk in a nice blue and white dress. There are sexual overtones, but it is not necessarily lustful.

On some level I can appreciate the male nude, but in general they do not interest me. Neither do wedding photos, although women abound in them--nor insect photos. I am not interested in many kinds of things,although I might develop a greater esthetic interest in them in the future.

"Lusting" to me implies something stronger than simply admiring a person of the sex I am attracted to--in my case women.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · May 10, 2010

Lannie, OK, let's go with lustful. You say you want to experience the beauty and purity of nudes non-lustfully. Not liking wedding photos is a completely different matter. You're already in the genre of nudes and seeking a non-lustful experience and so I find it suspicious that you're only seeking that non-lustful experience with the population within the stated genre of nudes with whom you have the potential of having a lustful attraction. In other words, since you are only including the segment of the population you could possibly lust after, I'd have a hard time believing that lust wouldn't always be playing a part here.

As for wedding photos, here's my analogy. If you told me you weren't a bigot and were searching for beautiful and pure wedding photos but that you only liked wedding photos of white people and just didn't happen to be at all interested in weddings of black people, I might have a hard time believing, despite your claims, that you weren't a bigot.

I don't think you're a bigot by any means. It's just an analogy. But the convenience of excluding those you couldn't possibly lust after and only including those you could lust after in your search for the lustless nude is striking.

Landrum Kelly · May 10, 2010

I find it suspicious

</blockquote>

Sexuality is pervasive in our lives, Fred. No reason to go getting suspicious.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · May 10, 2010

This is now officially Chinatown, the movie.

"She's my sister. She's my daughter. She's my sister and my daughter!"

In any case, I'd say we're farther from purity and beauty in the nude than when we started, so I'm content.

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