Eroticism in Renaissance / Post-Renaissance Art?

[Livenotonevil]

The latter in its composition has a focus of showcasing the female body, while the former goes out of its way to make sure that the female body is something that can't be observed.

My problem is with art which is deemed acceptable that - in prayer, especially in times of great great temptation - can be harmful spiritually.

This is what I find problematic.

Does this make sense?

Maybe it's a premise of prayer from Orthodoxy that prayer should be passionless, which may come across as bizarre if the RCC in its prayer life doesn't require such a premise.

If the fact that a woman is a woman (or has a curvy shape commonly associated with woman) is somehow a temptation, the issue is with the person mired in sin, and not in the outline of the woman. 

The BVM is fully clothed, in modest dress, and you're still either seeing or seeking some sort of temptation/scandal in the idea that she's a woman.

Under your approach to such things, the Little Office of the BVM is completely off-limits to one with lustful temptations, due to the line Versicle and Response
V. Blessed be the womb of the Virgin Mary which bore the Son of the Eternal Father.
R. And blessed be the paps which gave suck to Christ our Lord.
(adapted from Luke 11:27 - And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. )

"For these superfluous and diaphanous materials are the proof of a weak mind, covering as they do the shame of the body with a slender veil." - Clement of Alexandria, ANF 2:265

" Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled." - Clement of Alexandria, ANF 2:290

"Let a holy woman, if naturally beautiful, give none so great occasion (for carnal appetite). Certainly, if even she be so, she ought not to set off (her beauty), but even to obscure it" - Tertullian, ANF 4:20

"It is not right that a virgin should have her hair braided for the appearance of her beauty." - Tertullian, ANF 4:431

I'll add some more quotes:

"By no means are women to be allowed to uncover and exhibit any part of their bodies, lest both fall – the men by being incited to look, and the women by attracting to themselves the eyes of men" - Clement of Alexandria

"But self-control and modesty do not consist only in purity of the flesh, but also in seemliness and in modesty of dress and adornment."
-Cyprian

"Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily. . . As a result, the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, although they cannot see the body itself."
-Clement of Alexandria

"Either we must speak as we dress, or dress as we speak. Why do we profess one thing and display another? The tongue talks of chastity, but the whole body reveals impurity."
-Jerome


You're gonna tell me these wonderful saints were "mired with sinned" and were spiritually unhealthy?


You know, we live in a society that has embraced a hatred for the virtue of modesty - for both our sisters (who I think have a much greater social pressure) and our brothers (who can be idiots like myself). However, why should the churches follow the world in this regard? Particularly in adoring the female and male form?

I mean, why did women cover their heads (and are supposed to still do) in both the Roman Catholic Churches and Orthodox Churches?

[Kaesekopf]

The latter in its composition has a focus of showcasing the female body, while the former goes out of its way to make sure that the female body is something that can't be observed.

My problem is with art which is deemed acceptable that - in prayer, especially in times of great great temptation - can be harmful spiritually.

This is what I find problematic.

Does this make sense?

Maybe it's a premise of prayer from Orthodoxy that prayer should be passionless, which may come across as bizarre if the RCC in its prayer life doesn't require such a premise.

If the fact that a woman is a woman (or has a curvy shape commonly associated with woman) is somehow a temptation, the issue is with the person mired in sin, and not in the outline of the woman. 

The BVM is fully clothed, in modest dress, and you're still either seeing or seeking some sort of temptation/scandal in the idea that she's a woman.

Under your approach to such things, the Little Office of the BVM is completely off-limits to one with lustful temptations, due to the line Versicle and Response
V. Blessed be the womb of the Virgin Mary which bore the Son of the Eternal Father.
R. And blessed be the paps which gave suck to Christ our Lord.
(adapted from Luke 11:27 - And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. )

Dear Kaese, I did not read your post and coveyed the same sentiment about the BVM. And that if there is a "problem with her female form, it in his head".

Great minds!

[Miriam_M]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you are really just revealing your own struggles and finding evil where there is none, because you see it reflected in your own temptations. The 2nd image is by no means erotic or even tending towards it.

I'm joining you on the limb.  It was also my first thought regarding the second image as supposedly erotic.  As K said, she looks like a woman.   God created the female form and called it Good.  Ditto for the male form. A shape is not the same thing as a deliberate attempt to be provocative.  If the mere outline of the female form is considered "erotic," than there are deeper problems brewing.

[Vetus Ordo]

The fact that cardinals, bishops, and holy priests for centuries have been outraged with nudity and even the overuse of sensuality in art (not the painting of Our Lady you used but more like fat naked angels, Sistine chapel and Adam and Eve images) cannot be whitewashed with screams of extremism. There is a historical argument which if read historically both the East & West were in agreement until the Renaissance and finally changed to where the West freely accepts nudism in art. I'm not going to litigate history again, just pointing something out. A very learned priest trained in Rome showed me the historical arguments against such art and they are real historical arguments based on fallen nature which one can argue has merit.

Surely arguments can be made from either perspective. The point remains, though, that partial nudity in western religious art has been an accepted norm for centuries. In the Early Church, owing no doubt to Jewish spiritual heritage, the images in and of themselves were initially frowned upon and it took some centuries until they were accepted by all as a legitimate resource to be availed of in order decorate churches and instill piety. In some of these areas of Church life, especially in the realm of disciplinary practices, there has been genuine development in Catholic thought. The Eastern Orthodox, for instance, are still somewhat stuck in the two-dimensional argument for images when the West, already having accepted the principle of pictorical representation itself, moved forward into accepting three-dimensionality as a logical consequence.

I don't believe there's any substantial difference between the painting of St. Sebastian that the OP presented, where the suffering saint is almost naked and being killed with arrows, and 95% of the depictions of Christ on the cross, who is also represented as a male body almost naked. In fact, in reality, He probably was fully naked when they nailed Him to the cross. Naturally, modesty demanded that He should not represented in full nude. The context and the form of the paitings, however, annihilate any suggestion of eroticism. The paintings do not portray the aesthetics of sexual desire, sensuality or romantic love, as I said before. They simply do not.

This is a typical, centuries old, three-dimensional statue of "Christ in Agony" that is glued to crucifixes in traditional Spanish and Italian artwork. With more or less blood depicted, this is the type of depiction you are likely to find in churches:



There's no substantial difference between this traditional depiction of Christ and the images the OP presented. The accusation of eroticism or, worse, homoeroticism, is baseless. I believe some confusion arises when conflating nudity with eroticism. While there might be, admitedly, some gray areas here and there, the practice has been accepted.

Why are the gray areas even close to acceptable - that is the point of my question.

Because the artistic value of the pieces and the religious message they portray annihilate any question of "eroticism" beying displayed.

The praxis of the Church has confirmed it.

[Kaesekopf]

I'll add some more quotes:

"By no means are women to be allowed to uncover and exhibit any part of their bodies, lest both fall – the men by being incited to look, and the women by attracting to themselves the eyes of men" - Clement of Alexandria

"But self-control and modesty do not consist only in purity of the flesh, but also in seemliness and in modesty of dress and adornment."
-Cyprian

"Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily. . . As a result, the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, although they cannot see the body itself."
-Clement of Alexandria

"Either we must speak as we dress, or dress as we speak. Why do we profess one thing and display another? The tongue talks of chastity, but the whole body reveals impurity."
-Jerome


You're gonna tell me these wonderful saints were "mired with sinned" and were spiritually unhealthy?


You know, we live in a society that has embraced a hatred for the virtue of modesty - for both our sisters (who I think have a much greater social pressure) and our brothers (who can be idiots like myself). However, why should the churches follow the world in this regard? Particularly in adoring the female and male form?

I mean, why did women cover their heads (and are supposed to still do) in both the Roman Catholic Churches and Orthodox Churches?

The only quote that could POSSIBLY apply to the BVM is the one you bolded, but even then, you're grasping.  Plus, the "whole make of the body" isn't apparent you just see that she has hips (as any post-partum woman would be expected to have).

Don't conflate headcoverings as a defense for your hangups on the female body. 

[Miriam_M]

I want to add something.

There are those of us who rely on Mary's intercession to help with our female medical needs.  It's reassuring to some of us to be able to visualize her with the same body parts that we have.  It just provides a point of commonality.

[Serviam]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you are really just revealing your own struggles and finding evil where there is none, because you see it reflected in your own temptations. The 2nd image is by no means erotic or even tending towards it.

I'm joining you on the limb.  It was also my first thought regarding the second image as supposedly erotic.  As K said, she looks like a woman.   God created the female form and called it Good.  Ditto for the male form. A shape is not the same thing as a deliberate attempt to be provocative.  If the mere outline of the female form is considered "erotic," than there are deeper problems brewing.

Room on the limb for me as well?

[Miriam_M]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you are really just revealing your own struggles and finding evil where there is none, because you see it reflected in your own temptations. The 2nd image is by no means erotic or even tending towards it.

I'm joining you on the limb.  It was also my first thought regarding the second image as supposedly erotic.  As K said, she looks like a woman.   God created the female form and called it Good.  Ditto for the male form. A shape is not the same thing as a deliberate attempt to be provocative.  If the mere outline of the female form is considered "erotic," than there are deeper problems brewing.

Room on the limb for me as well?

Gardener made sure to choose an especially long limb.

[Kephapaulos]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you are really just revealing your own struggles and finding evil where there is none, because you see it reflected in your own temptations. The 2nd image is by no means erotic or even tending towards it.

I'm joining you on the limb.  It was also my first thought regarding the second image as supposedly erotic.  As K said, she looks like a woman.   God created the female form and called it Good.  Ditto for the male form. A shape is not the same thing as a deliberate attempt to be provocative.  If the mere outline of the female form is considered "erotic," than there are deeper problems brewing.

Room on the limb for me as well?

Gardener made sure to choose an especially long limb.

Yes, I want to join too.

[Miriam_M]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you are really just revealing your own struggles and finding evil where there is none, because you see it reflected in your own temptations. The 2nd image is by no means erotic or even tending towards it.

I'm joining you on the limb.  It was also my first thought regarding the second image as supposedly erotic.  As K said, she looks like a woman.   God created the female form and called it Good.  Ditto for the male form. A shape is not the same thing as a deliberate attempt to be provocative.  If the mere outline of the female form is considered "erotic," than there are deeper problems brewing.

Room on the limb for me as well?

Gardener made sure to choose an especially long limb.

Yes, I want to join too.

You're in.

[Livenotonevil]

Don't fall off the imaginary limb.

Yes, Christ was half-naked - but as I've brought up before, there are differences in sensuality.

I'll post two examples.

This one I'll say isn't that corporeal:




But this one is:



Do you see the difference in how the beauty of the body is emphasized between the two?


My problem is with artwork that is minimally erotic (emphasis on minimally), which may produce problems in the subconscious - particularly for monastics who would have to see that kind of art every day of his or her life, and which may harm one's prayer life and fight against the passions.

This is my problem, and I'm wondering why this kind of art is acceptable - yet modernistic RCC art isn't even though it is largely accepted by the Papacy.
(Although anybody with eyes could see that modernistic art is from Hell, it is, as Seraphim Rose calls it, the "Mystery of Iniquity" or the "Mystery of Lawlessness" - art which is not governed by any concrete laws of objective reality, but whose basis is total anarchy and relativism).

[Carleendiane]

Don't fall off the imaginary limb.

Yes, Christ was half-naked - but as I've brought up before, there are differences in sensuality.

I'll post two examples.

This one I'll say isn't that corporeal:




But this one is:



Do you see the difference in how the beauty of the body is emphasized between the two?


My problem is with artwork that is minimally erotic (emphasis on minimally), which may produce problems in the subconscious - particularly for monastics who would have to see that kind of art every day of his or her life, and which may harm one's prayer life and fight against the passions.

This is my problem, and I'm wondering why this kind of art is acceptable - yet modernistic RCC art isn't even though it is largely accepted by the Papacy.
(Although anybody with eyes could see that modernistic art is from Hell, it is, as Seraphim Rose calls it, the "Mystery of Iniquity" or the "Mystery of Lawlessness" - art which is not governed by any concrete laws of objective reality, but whose basis is total anarchy and relativism).

This art denotes nothing more than a realistic view of the death of our Savior.  Anything else is truly a an exaggerated view of this image. Neither image invokes a sexual view of the images. And neither would the though have crossed many of mind without the suggestion  from OP.