08-11-2012, 06:42 PM
All my nieces and nephews (ages 8-14) have been well taught in Christian modesty. While we were online yesterday, they all covered "barely bikini" figures (in pop-up windows) with their hand. (They don't watch TV at all). Their mother is extremely opposed to nudity even in great art (not only for children). So when my 13 year old niece expressed shock and disgust at Michelangelo's art in the Sistine Chapel, it wasn't surprising. (We were looking at other great art, and the Sistine Chapel just came up).
When I think of great artists, I think of Michelangelo first of all. No one can deny the immense beauty of his works, and their depiction of the human form, God's creation. Obviously most people today would say that anyone who objects to the nudity in his art is nothing but a prude. What do you think? What are your reasons? What do you tell to a 13 year old?
Here are a couple of relevant quotes I found elsewhere (food for thought)
What should be our view of this nudity? I've seen the Sistine Chapel before, and would gladly see it again, but I think this question is worth asking.
When I think of great artists, I think of Michelangelo first of all. No one can deny the immense beauty of his works, and their depiction of the human form, God's creation. Obviously most people today would say that anyone who objects to the nudity in his art is nothing but a prude. What do you think? What are your reasons? What do you tell to a 13 year old?
Here are a couple of relevant quotes I found elsewhere (food for thought)
Quote:"I can understand that an artist’s intention is to show the beauty of that which was created - that the human body is beautiful and is made in the image and likeness of God. But things have taken a different turn, with the fall of Adam and the act of Original Sin. Making figures clothed would make the statement that God is made in the image of God more powerful by saying that it is a temple of the Holy Spirit and therefore so holy that it must be covered."
Quote:Pope Pius X did not need to cover the figures of the Sistine chapel because they were not nude but had already been covered over.
In the mid-1500s, the Council of Trent had decided that nudity in art was immoral. In January 1564., one month before Michelangelo’s death, the assembly of the Council of Trent voted to “amend” Michaleangelo's "Last Justment" and ordered Michelangelo's pupil Daniele da Volterra to conceal the nudity by painting cloth over the offending, naked genitalia sections. The Pope went around sticking fig leaves to the sculpted and painted genitalia of Rome. Fig leaves are visible all over Rome. In the 17th Century, Pope Alexander VII had the sculptur Bernini cover his statue of Truth" at St. Peter's Basilica (which he had just carved nude) covered with a bronze robe because he deemed the nude female figure scandalous.
Someone in another forum wrote, "Art should take into account our fallen nature - it should help fallen man become more virtuous, not assume that he has already achieved virtue." I agree.
What should be our view of this nudity? I've seen the Sistine Chapel before, and would gladly see it again, but I think this question is worth asking.