Nudity in the Sistine Chapel
(08-12-2012, 04:16 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Dont't bash baroque or Bernini. Just sayin....

I make an exception for Bernini. I believe that man was touched by God.... even if he did hire a guy to slash his mistress's face when she was "cheating" on him.
(08-12-2012, 04:17 AM)Barbara K. Wrote: Hmm you've introduced me to a new, and interesting, name. I will have to look into the work of Pugin.

If the Vatican looked like Bath, England it would be an improvement.

I made a thread all about Pugin here.

However, Pugin would've probably hated most of the architecture in Bath. He shocked Georgian society when, in his book "Contrasts", he condemned buildings like Buckingham Palace and the National Gallery as national disgraces.

Here's an example of one of his illustrations in the book wherein he contrasts the classical (pagan) architecture of his time to the ideal Gothic (Christian) architecture of the Middle Ages.

[Image: 06.jpg]
Augustus Pugin, very interesting! I didn't knew much about him.

I like Baroque style too, and Bernini. But I don't like his Saint Teresa sculpture so much. Also, Baroque sometimes can get too anthropocentric... what do you think?
Baroque is too busy. My mother thinks that St. Teresa sculpture is too erotic.

I mean, there are "nudes" that are way less erotic.
Speaking frankly, it sounds like an unhealthy aversion to the human body.  Problems down the road, ya know?
More Catholic Discussion:

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
I always thought the Chapel nudes looked lumpy,like bags of nuts.Not sexy at all.

[Image: sistine-chapel-ceiling.jpg]
(08-12-2012, 03:21 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: Baroque is too busy. My mother thinks that St. Teresa sculpture is too erotic.

I mean, there are "nudes" that are way less erotic.

Well, I suppose it makes a certain amount of sense when you consider that she was a mystic.

Also, on the quotation at the end of the first post in this thread about art making man virtuous, I agree that we should be wary of overly individualistic conceptions of art and give  greater consideration to the ways in which an encounter with the beautiful can affect a person, but surely this does not mean reducing art to a didacticism that limits us to merely illustrating a rational content through art that could have been put forth just as well by some other means. That strikes me as overly rationalistic and ultimately less effective anyway.
(08-12-2012, 03:42 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: I always thought the Chapel nudes looked lumpy,like bags of nuts.Not sexy at all.

Michelangelo used male models, even for female figures.

Bernini's Ecstasy of Saint Teresa is..... interesting. It was a little controversial even in his own day. But Bernini based the statue on a description Saint Teresa herself wrote, which can be interpreted erotically too:

Saint Teresa Wrote:I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying.
(08-11-2012, 06:42 PM)Doce Me Wrote: 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)
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.

We should be against it, like how every Pope held before JPII came along and restored the nudity in the Chapel and how the council of Trent condemned nudity in religious art (see 25th session "on sacred images".) I think the nudity lasted maybe fourteen years before Pope Paul IV had it covered and was only unveiled in the 1990s.

I wonder what the thought process was for JPII when seeing the art piece... "you know what we need restored on this piece? A nice flaccid penis!" Truly disturbing. He really didn't have any regard for decency since he also gave communion to a bare breasted woman, which violated law.
(08-12-2012, 03:42 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: I always thought the Chapel nudes looked lumpy,like bags of nuts.Not sexy at all.

I don't think there is a problem with nudity in itself, but how it is represented and interpreted. If the piece is erotic or suggestive, then it should be avoided because temptation in the situation could be hard to avoid. But if the piece is not sexually suggestive, and one is still tempted by the image....that's all in your head. I think being repressed like others have described makes one extremely sensitive to anything that could even remotely be related to sex. Basically everything can be seen as sinful if you bring the wrong attitudes/motivations to it.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)