posted
As an artist myself, I've always loved the study of the human figure. The human body is amazing, a gift from God, something that we should celebrate, but not exploit.
So obviously the discussion of pornography vs. art when it comes to nude paintings is one that interests me. Have I ever attended a nude drawing session, no, though chances are I probably will at least once sometime down the road of my career, and I can see why they are there. It really is hard to draw a person when you don't understand at least the basic anatomy of the human figure. And it's hard to get a working knowledge of human anatomy when you've never practiced drawing it from life. It helps you in many aspects of your art... and yes, it especially helps you with drawing clothed figures, because you actually understand what is going on beneath those clothes.
Still, I can also see why some would be apprehensive about nude painting for fear of crossing over into pornography. I certainly have my reservations as well. There is a fine line that we must be careful of. There is always that limit of what is acceptable and what is not.
This brother here makes an excellent point, IMO. That the marketed difference between art and pornography is that of respect for the body vs. objectifying it. There can be room for nude drawing sessions provided they are approached in a mature and respectful manner.
posted
From the point of an artist I don't see anything wrong with going on a course drawing nude people for the reasons you stated. Like I don't see a problem with a doctor seeing nude people. If I'd be an artist I wouldn't choose to keep on drawing nude people when I have so many other ways of expressing myself.
From the point of a person, especially lds, who might be struggling with pornography related issues, I see a problem. (This based on experiences by real people). Real pornography is a problem. For many lds that is something they know so well, that they can avoid the real porn. But they can use artistic pictures and even advertisements as porn for themselves, because after all, those pictures have nothing to do with porn. It's an "ok" way to get the sexual arousal, it's too easy to reason it that way. It may be they never move to real porn, but the problem they have is still the same would they be viewing real porn.
Posts: 799 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't say that I disagree with anything either you, cookiejar, or the blog writer, J Kirk Richards, wrote.
I know I have some hangups about the human body, but I also know these are not healthy hangups. I'm damaged. I get that.
I've gotten involved in art recently, and one of the pieces of advice I've received in regards to how to improve what I'm doing is to study the human form with the same argument that Richards makes - you can't draw the human body properly if you don't know what's going on with the muscles, bones, whatever. So this is something I'm starting to do. Starting with bones, then adding on muscle, then adding skin, working through the body. If I want to become a better artist, it's something I'm going to have to do.
I doubt I'll ever attend an art class with a nude model. I have too many hangups for that. But I have no problem with other artists, LDS or otherwise, attending those same classes.
And I don't think nudes - whether carved or drawn or painted - are necessarily porn (although I imagine they can be). Art and porn are not the same thing at all to me.
Posts: 4279 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are okay with the classes, you are also okay with your son, daughter, sister, brother, mom, dad, wife, husband, grandma, grandp, and great-grandma being the models, right? What is byu's solution? do they use nude models or models in body suits? Or do they just forego?
Posts: 5040 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had an institute teacher who had worked on many of the Angel Moronis that top many of our temples. He walked us through the whole process from start to finish - fascinating. They start by building a naked Moroni, and then add the bits of flowing robe as the next step.
quote: If you are okay with the classes, you are also okay with your son, daughter, sister, brother, mom, dad, wife, husband, grandma, grandp, and great-grandma being the models, right?
When I was younger, I had to have both knees reconstructed, a surgery which took place at a teaching hospital attached to a university. One of the requirements was that I agree to be a 'model' for about 60 student doctors, all of whom spent a couple of hours observing me as I lay unclothed on an operating table, my knees sliced open. Should this bother me?
Posts: 587 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few years ago, I had a conversation with a fellow writer who was on the high council with me. I said something about wanting to write westerns, but that I felt I needed to throw in some salty language in order to make it realistic. A counselor in the stake presidency who wrote a column for the local paper walked by and so I asked his opinion. His response was, "maybe you should write something else." I think that's good advice. Why should I compromise myself? I don't think that the Lord feels writing realistically is as important as keeping bad things out of my brain. Nudity, while it isn't inherently evil, can cause bad thoughts...otherwise, why would there be modest dress codes etc.? Frankly, I don't think that knowing how the body looks under the clothes is a good argument for drawing nudes. All artists have seen nude people before, even if it's their own reflection in the mirror. You don't need to do it. That's just my opinion.
Posts: 3194 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: This brother here makes an excellent point, IMO. That the marketed difference between art and pornography is that of respect for the body vs. objectifying it. There can be room for nude drawing sessions provided they are approached in a mature and respectful manner.
He really does a great job expressing this! I like it.
quote: If I'd be an artist I wouldn't choose to keep on drawing nude people when I have so many other ways of expressing myself.
If you were an artist, you would of course have to understand how limiting that might be to an artist who rejoices in creating the human form again and again and again. My art is dressing the human form- I still have to know up close and personal the form I want to cover AND I OFTEN HAVE TO WORK HANDS ON...thus in the course of measurements I have had silly actors/ customers make remarks. They get "the look" and if it continues, actors get to chat with the director about insulting the designer and customers have to find another designer. The raciest I ever got was "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way To the Forum." The theatre company gently ribbed me on the modest slave girl costumes and proceeded to add little funny touches--but they stayed comparatively modest. How I am in my mind and how I present myself cuts way back on the crapoleum.
quote: If you are okay with the classes, you are also okay with your son, daughter, sister, brother, mom, dad, wife, husband, grandma, grandp, and great-grandma being the models, right?
Oh yes totally! as the human form ages it changes in wonderful ways. Of course, models are vetted and are totally as ease with what they are asked to do. I PERSONALLY would have a problem being a model for damaged self image reasons but if any of my relations were asked- wow! it is an honor to be viewed as having something to contribute to human art.
quote: Frankly, I don't think that knowing how the body looks under the clothes is a good argument for drawing nudes. All artists have seen nude people before, even if it's their own reflection in the mirror. You don't need to do it. That's just my opinion.
It is very very tricky to draw from a reflection that changes every time one moves. A body is three dimensional, a reflection is not. Writing knowledge is at best wo dimensional- art is three even on canvas. If you cannot "see" the third dimension ( and you really cannot in a mirror) your art will always be unsatisfactory. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX.
Posts: 5468 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That remark came across as self-righteous. With that attitude, we would not have such amazing works of art, like Michelangelo's David, or Botticelli's "Primavera" or "Birth of Venus", both of which I posted in my home during my son's growing-up years, and beyond. We are told we are made in the image of God, that our bodies are temples. We should rejoice and react in wonder of this amazing creation.
Artists see beauty in the world around them. They want to capture that beauty as they see it. To not be able to get the human form accurately on paper, canvas, clay or bronze would be a source of much frustration and angst.
Let's take the "Maybe you should do something else" approach further. Doctors very often must see patients in a state of undress. For them to avoid ever seeing someone naked, we'd be out of urologists. And gynecologists. And oncologists. Heck, even thoracic surgeons.
Not all bodies are alike. Just because I know what I look like naked does not mean that I have become an expert on the subject. I doubt any of us women on the board are interchangeable. Our uniqueness is a wonderful gift from God. Clothes that fit on me might look horrible on someone else.
Would I model? Yes, if I were asked, and I knew it would be approached in a respectful manner. I am a great example of what the human body looks like as a forty-something after nursing several children brought into this world via C-section who tries to set a good fitness example for her children, but looks completely different from her younger, taller, award-winning bodybuilder Amazon of a sister who gave birth naturally four times. Maybe I would like to know an artist sees something just as beautiful in my God-given body as hers.
I am sure you did not mean that at snarky as it sounds.
Until the Prophet of the Lord makes reference to art and the human body as being unfit for Zion then I don't feel like I am justifying anything. Art is art. It is three dimensional. Until the Lord directs us that art concerning the human body is forbidden because it is pornography, as unhappy I would be to know that man destroyed that beauty of that expression in art, I would obey.
( wanders out of the discussion murmuring that some folks also think burkas are needful....)
Posts: 5468 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, look, I didn't mean it in either a self-righteous or snarky manner, I was just rushing out the door at the time. Here's the thing. 1) We have been taught that the human body is sacred and a temple. If we are endowed members of the Church, we've been instructed to not take off our garments for just any old reason. If we are to treat our bodies as sacred, that means we need to be very judicious in the way they are displayed. 2) In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve "hid themselves because" they were naked. The Lord suggested they should be covered. (Gen. 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.) 3) If we are to keep our garments on, then we shouldn't expect that the Lord is okay with non-members doing what members shouldn't be doing--even though they don't wear garments, that doesn't make it right. What I mean is, if someone smokes who is not a member of our faith, does the Lord think that's perfectly fine even though the person doesn't know anything at all about the Word of Wisdom? No, of course not. He's perhaps more lenient with them because they don't know any better, but he's still not in favor of smoking. 4) There's a reason for modesty commandments. Saying "it's not about sex", may be true...of course in the case of medical students, it probably is. But there's a big difference between studying the body for medical purposes and studying it so that you can supposedly draw it better. But I'd say the reason most people look at nude bodies is for sexual reasons. 5) When I was a teenager, I had several posters of various "Charlie's Angels" hanging on my wall. Wow, did I ever admire what those women looked like! Their bodies were creations of God too. Of course, I was immature at the time. It's a fine line. I'm certainly not perfect in that even now. I'd rather stay as far away from that as possible. Because Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, we are subject to temptation. Just because it's clinical, or because it's for a class (or dare I say, it, just because it's a classical rendition of David) doesn't mean it won't titillate us in some way. An LDS artist I'm familiar with said, "As an LDS artist, I think that it's still unnecessary to use the naked body as an art form, regardless of how "profound" or "beautiful" it might seem. Sure, our bodies are beautiful things... but because they are such they are to be handled with care and sensitivity. There's no reason why students should use a nude model as opposed to a clothed form other than seeing the raw form that's creating the shapes, but that could be achieved through tight-fitting clothing (which isn't all that good in itself but much better than nudity)."
So, this is how I drew my conclusions. I'm not sure that referencing classic works of art really justifies nudity, but then again, I'm not saying those works of art are evil either. Personally, I'm not turned on by Venus or David, so perhaps you're right, Crowgirl. But remember that old seminary anecdote about the three drivers trying out for a job and the first one brags about his driving skills that he can get within one foot of the edge of the cliff without falling off, then the second one says he can get within six inches without driving off the edge. The third one, perhaps more wise says, "I'm going to stay as far away from the edge as possible." That's what I personally need to do or undoubtedly, my estimation of my driving skill will be wrong and over the cliff I'll go. But that's just me and my two cents.
posted
I think the issue is that people don't see the value of art (nude or otherwise). They view the necessity of medicine as justification that nudity is a requirement. However, art isn't necessary, thus, the nudity is wrong. We can live without David or Venus, but not without necessary surgery.
Posts: 3145 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there is value in art, to be sure. And in some cases, music has been shown to be medicinal, so why not paintings, sculptures, or drawings? So I don't want to be misconstrued that I don't think there's value in art...
Each person has to decide for himself or herself, but I think there are some pretty clear guidelines...at least, for me.
Posts: 3194 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But there's a big difference between studying the body for medical purposes and studying it so that you can supposedly draw it better.
On this point Shane, I will have to disagree with you. There is a fundamental purpose behind studying the nude figure in either field, and that is anatomy. Anatomy is not something that is learned simply by memorization, it is more effectively learned through hands on observation. It's not just reading, it's seeing... seeing how the body works, seeing how it flows, how it functions, how the various different muscles connect, etc. You would think that since we see bodies all the time, we would know how the arm looks, how it bends, or where the nose goes, but ask someone to go and draw it accurately, and then you get a whole different story.
Drawing and art is a very hands on creative process. You don't become successful by always drawing from memory. Being able to draw from life is a very fundamental skill to have, even if your main emphasis in on cartooning, because it helps you in everything else that you do. It's about training your eye and your hand to quickly record what you see with great accuracy. To be able to effectively draw flowers, for example, you can't just rely on your memory all the time, or just take one glance at one flower and think you can do that because "I see flowers all the time". No, you have to actually LOOK at the flowers, study them, record them, look at the shapes, colors, research the various different species, watch how the leaves and pedals fold, etc. so that when you do go to draw them from memory later you have a better sense of where everything goes. The same goes for the figure, especially since humans are far more complex than flowers. For this reason, BYU's figure drawing classes go as follows: the 100 level course (with the speedos and bikinis) must be taken BEFORE the next 200 level advanced drawing course where the drapery is added. Why? Because then you have the foundational skills needed to be able to place the clothes. You understand the concept behind why the clothes drape over the body the way they do, what goes on beneath them, etc. (it is for this reason why classical and hellenistic Greek sculptures had such successful drapery... they too understood this concept).
Have I personally ever been to a completely nude drawing session? No. Will I ever attend one? I would rather not (though it will probably be inevitable at least once down the road of my career), nor would I ever hang a nude portrait in my living room. When approached respectfully and maturely, I admire nude art as just that: a study of the human figure, but not something to be exploited or treated permissively. If my kids ever approached me about classical nude art or something, I would certainly use it as a teaching moment, but still emphasize the sacred limits the have been set for us and why.
It is unfortunate that the body has been so contorted by the world into something that is purely carnal and sexual that it can't be appreciated for what it is: a gift from God. So I can't fault someone for not wanting to do nude figure studies.
In the meantime, I'll just refer them to posemaniacs.com. Animated cadavers are a lot less awkward than naked people.
posted
If you have no problem with your 20 years old daughter coming home with the news that she found that part time job she needed to support her college life - being a nude model for the art classes, are you going to be as supporting when she tells you that she got the role in the university drama production but it means she is going to be nude for a scene? Both situations are expressions of art.
I am also curious about temple recommends for a nude art model - I guess the question is to PF. If a member comes to you and tells you in the interview that they are a nude model for such classes, do you issue the recommend?
Posts: 5040 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Cookiejar. I really appreciate your comments. My reasoning on art and medicine has only to do with whether it's a matter of life or death, or not. Art is very much appreciated by myself and others, but medicine is used to save lives and heal injuries. That's it. Other than that, I fully understand the need for anatomy in art.
Another interesting concept, and one that I think can help artists, are CAD renditions of the human body and motion. Do art classes ever make use of CAD to understand anatomy and movement better?
posted
The portrayal of the nude human body has different intents. It is the intent that matters. If the display is meant to tantalize, arouse, be erotic in some form and etc then I consider it pornography. Now, some may find themselves aroused by any form display of a nude body and thus it is important they avoid any such displays.
In Texas our Stake Patriarch was (and probably still is) an art teacher at the university. He taught figure drawing and used nude models for the class both male and female. I didn't get to take one of his figure drawing classes but I would have had I the opportunity (I had taken one that preceded that level but it was not my major). I will note that from what I saw, he didn't have nude art in his home.
I find no reason why someone who is a nude model for an art class or medical purposes has anything to even confess. There's no intent behind those activities to warrant any feeling of guilt nor anything that would require an answer to one of the temple recommend questions that would prevent getting one. There are times when the garment can be removed for non-nefarious reasons.
posted
This sounds a lot like the football player working on Sunday discussion. Why is it that we expect doctors can look at a nude and not be aroused. While artists can't do this same thing?
So, if doctors and artists can look at a nude then why is it that everybody else can't look at nudes and not be aroused? Seems to me God was looking at Eve when she was nude. If we want to be like God then we need to be able to do the same thing.
Do not misinterpret this as saying seek out opportunities to look at nudes. Rather, as it was said in the opening post there is a fundamental need for respect of every other person.
Some people will never be able, in this life, to not be aroused by a nude. Knowing this they should actively avoid the experience. But, just because some, maybe even most, will never not be aroused by a nude, does not mean that a total prohibition is the right answer.
The principle of the rejoinder "Why don't you write something else" is a denial of truth. That same thinking has equal application to a news journalist covering humans being evil to one another.
Just tonight my daughter fell and hurt her wrist. And then she said, "When I bend my wrist this way," demonstrates, "it hurts." I said stop bending your wrist like that and it will heal. In the same way, if a person always reacts to to a nude by being aroused they need to stop doing that.
We can either be fully human and live up to or god given potential, or we can be like Pavlov's dogs and just respond in a conditioned natural man way. We can choose how we respond to stimulus.
I'm reminded of this bit of dialog from the Star Trek, Original series, Kirk:
quote:All right. It's instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We're human beings with the blood of a million savage years on our hands, but we can stop it. We can admit that we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes. Knowing that we won't kill today. Contact Vendikar. I think you'll find that they're just as terrified, appalled, horrified as you are, that they'll do anything to avoid the alternative I've given you. Peace or utter destruction. It's up to you.
posted
As a parent, I would have a hard time telling my daughter to be modest but that being a nude model was okay - intent and all. As a spouse, I'd have a hard time saying to my husband I was hunky dory with his being an art class model. If intent is the deciding factor, being a member of a nudist colony should be no problem either, as members are always saying there is no sexual connotation involved.
Posts: 5040 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not being an artist myself, I'll have to take your word for it that it is necessary to observe a nude model to truly understand human anatomy. Still, I would not consider it an honor for myself or for my son or daughter to pose nude. The model has no control over how their body is drawn, or to what use the drawing is put. Once the drawing is made, it can be distributed, to anyone....just like sexting. ETA: I dated a guy who wanted to be an animator. One nude model he drew was a very fat woman, and his artwork from that session was done in lurid, mismatched colors that I felt revealed his dislike of the assignment. I felt vaguely sorry for the fat woman, and wished that I hadn't seen that part of his portfolio.
quote:Once the drawing is made, it can be distributed, to anyone.
And the responsibility for that would lie with the person doing the distributing.
Not sure which, but it is a false logical argument to compare modesty rules and nude artistic expression.
Posts: 10845 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, you caught me editing to add something. I don't think I'm equating two different things, just pointing out one potentially unpleasant consequence, which is why I wouldn't pose nude myself or be overjoyed to hear that my kids did.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: He was/is a very good man who has now left his wife and the Church.
Are we listening to MSNBC now? Roper has said after his divorce that it would have been very easy for him to go inactive. For all we know it could have been marital issues completely unrelated to his artistic endeavors.
I have many things in my life that an outside observer could have said, because he did X he became inactive. But, for every X that would have been at most partially correct. Looking back, I think if several X's had been a bit different my path would have had a more positive spin.
I'm just saying I have never met anyone who's life was so simple that a statement like because of X they did Y. More oft than not there are a series of A, B, C's leading up to X. And the accumulation of the series leads to Y.
quote:I don't think I'm equating two different things
I didn't mean to imply that it was an apple orange comparison, rather that it fell into one these logical fallacy categories.
posted
I started out as an art history major. So I spent lots of time thinking about this. I ended up deciding that intent and purpose matter.
A few weeks ago, a young adult man posted on his facebook page, a picture he had found in an art museum collection. It was a black and white photograph that graphically depicted a sexual exchange between what the title claimed was two teens. It was straight up porn.
Of this jerks 1500 facebook friends the vast majority whom are LDS, how many people do you think complained? This was a picture that was posted on the facebook pages of hundreds of minors most were family or members of this guy's family's ward. Did all those parents complain?
Nope.
Just me.
I am a lot less concerned about theoretically breasts and assorted bits and whether some talented person ought to be drawing them. I am much more concerned about the massive inability to act when the problem is not ambiguous.
Posts: 7922 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am also curious about temple recommends for a nude art model - I guess the question is to PF. If a member comes to you and tells you in the interview that they are a nude model for such classes, do you issue the recommend?
Aargg...
Temple recommends are intensely personal things. And not "objective" at all. For example: I gave a temple recommend this weekend to someone who has been a full tithe payer for exactly one week. Yet, I have not given one to someone who has been a full tithe payer for 3 months. It is a matter of attitude and individual commitment. It is a hard thing to explain, which is probably why we don't try to explain.
An art model? Is it the only line of work they can get? Is their spouse okay with it? Or parents? I think I would encourage them to find another occupation, after finding their motives for doing what they do.
Artists who paint nudes? I find it hard to believe that they are unable to find out how to draw/paint/sculpt the bits of the body covered by a bikini (male or female) without actually having a naked person posed in front of them. Especially in this day and age of stuff on the internet, and literally hundreds of books on the subject.
Nude artwork? Yeah, I get the all "It's not about sex!" statements. And I get the point that if what you paint affects me in a sexual way, it is my problem. But you are the one who put it in front of me knowing that it may affect me. If I invite you to dinner and serve chocolate fudge cake for dessert knowing that you are trying to diet and can't resist chocolate, whose problem is that?
As I said. It is very individual. For me, it is about respecting other people.
quote: A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.
I haven't read through every single one of the logical fallacies yet. Going by the titles, the closest ones seem like they could be "appeal to fear" or "appeal to consequences of belief" but reading through the descriptions of those, they don't fit at all. Actually, since I'm not making an "argument" how could any of them apply? I didn't say that posing nude is wrong because it can have the same consequences as sexting. I'm just providing a different perspective, not a conclusion or a moral judgement. That's what the discussion started with, right? "Your thoughts?" So here are my thoughts: I haven't formally studied art. I graduated in family history. I am always interested in the person and their story, that's just the lens I see through when I look at artwork, documents, or any other artifacts. So I may spend a moment gobsmacked by David's amazing hair curlicues and the technical skill required to do that with stone, but I will think longest about the boy(s) who modeled and wonder what impact being the model had on their life. Were they happy about the finished statue? Did any of them recognize a part of themselves in it? Could they even imagine how many people would see and admire it? I read the article in the OP, and I can imagine that very respectful, even spiritual, nude modeling sessions can happen among professionals and that it can really help an artist develop their skills. But because of what interests me, I don't see skill development as the whole story, the only thing that's going on there. The model is a real person, and that's who I think about. Obviously, some of them are flattered and thrilled to have their body displayed in a contribution to art. But I don't like the idea of my body parts on display for others to see, so I wouldn't enjoy that kind of immortality.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But remember that old seminary anecdote about the three drivers trying out for a job and the first one brags about his driving skills that he can get within one foot of the edge of the cliff without falling off, then the second one says he can get within six inches without driving off the edge. The third one, perhaps more wise says, "I'm going to stay as far away from the edge as possible."
Garrhgh. I hate this anecdote. An anecdote that more accurately describes most situations would be three drivers arguing over whether the road is 10 feet wide or 30 feet wide, not whether or not you should drive over the cliff.
I think the reason that anecdote bothers me so much is that it assumes the listener (a) knows his professed view is wrong, and (b) is just trying to justify/rationalize it, rather than having an honest difference of opinion. I think it's rather below us as Saints to assume bad faith in our brothers.
Posts: 2968 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has already been said, but there are a lot of ways for an artist to express themselves without using nude models. Ultimately it is a personal choice. My 22yo daughter is an amazing artist. She has taken a figure class with nude models. I'm cautiously okay with her taking that *one* class. I'm one of her biggest fans, and half of what she drew for that class I politely said I did not want to ever see again, but the other half was very tastefully done (her styles tends to run abstract). However, in those pieces that were tasteful, if nothing private is clearly defined in the piece then why was it necessary for the model to be nude in the first place? As a long-time-ago recovered (recovering?) porn addict from long before I joined the church, I can't allow myself the liberty of trying to find where that line between art and porn is. For all practical purposes, I have to treat all of it as something toxic (something to be avoided). All that said, I think the gender of the artist is a factor. In very general terms, sexual arousal for women is largely emotional rather than visual 9as it tends ot be for me). If I encounterd a male artist who spends a lot of time with nude models as his *preferred* subjects I would judge his saying that it is isn't in any way arousing to be a lie. Doctors approach nudity from an entirely different direction. A doctor's focus is on function (or malfunction), not aesthetics.
Posts: 304 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the operating room we keep people very well covered except as necessary for things such as positioning, bladder catheter placement, and the body part which is receiving the actual surgery. Otherwise everything is covered. The drapes cover the entire body and we have lots of blankets and padding underneath. It would actually be risky with sterility to have part of the body exposed during surgery.
Also, people look their worst in the hospital. It is not like television. Even good looking people look bad in the hospital.
I do appreciate the paid actors who come in and lets us practice physical examinations on them. They have typically had enough training from the preceptors and experience with medical students to let us know if we are palpating correctly, especially in sensitive areas. This is very important for when we actually have a nervous patient come see us. We can proceed in a very calm and professional manner that puts a nervous patient at ease.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
served a mission in italy. pretty much every piece of art was naked... so much so that I came to appreciate the artists who really mastered carving the intricacies of cloth and flowing marble robes. There are some rather fantastic pieces in the vatican, like La Pieta', which show the delicacy and loving value of keeping the figures mostly clothed, but in order to do that well, you must understand the musculature and anatomy of the human form... Clearly Michaelangelo got that... in fact I found his nudes less compelling, because there were so many of them... after a while it's kinda boring and silly...
quote: after a while it's kinda boring and silly...
We were just in Venice, Padua, and Udine. I admit unless a museum is REALLY compelling I reach a saturation point in about 30 minutes. It was no different this time: Like I said to Himself,"enough of the Mary boobs and naked Jesus'".
I appreciate classic art full stop. I am a funerary art junkie. But I found it refreshing and absorbing to view the very well curated coinage and money of ancient times rooms in a museum in Padua. One's attention does wane when the subject is overwhelmingly one theme. We should have stopped after Giotto's frescoes. THAT is a once in a life time experience. He changed art forever.
Posts: 5468 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Roper has said after his divorce that it would have been very easy for him to go inactive. For all we know it could have been marital issues completely unrelated to his artistic endeavors.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big laugh]](graemlins/biglaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
