BYU's stance on nude art - "Self Censorship"


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, zil said:

IMO, if you don't understand how seeing the events graphically depicted creates a visceral response that would not have been evoked without it, no one can explain it to you.  Either you experience it and understand at a visceral level something which implication and description cannot evoke, or you don't.

I have a friend who, when she reads fiction, does not experience what she reads.  She sees words.  She understands in the same way she understands math.  She does not see the events unfold, she does not feel emotions, she doesn't smell or hear a thing.  This baffles me and another friend with whom we discuss these things. The other friend and I see, hear, smell, emotionally feel the depicted events - we step into the story and live it (me most of all).  Our friend does not experience the events, but intellectually processes the description without any imagination / visualization.

Perhaps you are like that friend, perhaps not.  Perhaps you experience in a third way which doesn't benefit from the graphical depiction or which would actually benefit more from implication than explicit portrayal.  I don't know.  I probably should have said that the point is more effectively communicated to some with the graphic scenes than it would be without the graphic scenes, since I can't actually know that it's "necessary" or even what would be most effective for anyone but me.

I'm just asking you to explain your view. Don't presume mine from the questions.

Of the problems I have with Schindler's List, the nudity of the victims in the camps probably doesn't register very high. But I do wonder if it was necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm just asking you to explain your view. Don't presume mine from the questions.

Of the problems I have with Schindler's List, the nudity of the victims in the camps probably doesn't register very high. But I do wonder if it was necessary.

I did not and would not see it un-edited.  I saw a version which had been edited to remove some language and gratuitous scenes (e.g. apparently they cut a lot from a sex scene).  I only saw it once, and it's hard to remember / recognize what else may have been cut.  But the prisoner-related scenes were not (per a warning at the start of the film).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, zil said:

I did not and would not see it un-edited.  I saw a version which had been edited to remove some language and gratuitous scenes (e.g. apparently they cut a lot from a sex scene).  I only saw it once, and it's hard to remember / recognize what else may have been cut.  But the prisoner-related scenes were not (per a warning at the start of the film).

Regardless of content, it's one of those movies that you don't want to see twice. Very, very powerful and difficult to watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

However I will not be shown sex or nudity by the world because they don't have the right, it is the thing they abuse and drag through the mud. I will not bother with their opinion of the thing. Whether the medium be TV, movies, Music, or "art."

Totally down with this.  You get to say what you allow in to yourself and what you avoid.  A world full of people who draw that line in a more conservative place than I do?  Probably a better world than we have today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
30 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You get to say what you allow in to yourself and what you avoid. 

Absolutely true. You just can't force your own standard on the rest of society 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've never met an artist that didn't suffer in at least one of three ways:
- They can't art well enough to bring to life whatever is inside them.
- They can art just fine, but nobody gets them, people stand in their way.
- They must prostitute their art to da man in some way.

I could say that about almost all professions, including my own.

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Michelangelo was just barely starting out in art school as a young teen, and he aroused such jealousy in his peers that one bully broke his nose and left him disfigured for life.  He was melancholic and introverted person who popes and kings tried to pull about as they wished.  

Degas had fortune, fame, skill, and the life he wanted - until he started to go blind in his '40's.  After that, seclusion and depression got worse and worse as his ability to paint eroded. 

Picasso's women.  Two killed themselves.  Two went mad.  Dozens of affairs and codepenency issues sure didn't add to his happiness.

Worhal enjoyed the heck out of celebrity status.  Did quite well, even though he was shot and almost killed at 40 by a ticked-off person who suffered rejection poorly.

None of these misfortunes has anything to do with the fact they were artists (except for Michelangelo's bullies).

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I could say that about almost all professions, including my own.

That's fair.  Just in my experience interacting with artists, whatever particular suffering they're doing, seems to be a significant part of who they are.  At least, more significant, relative to non-artists.

I ain't defending it, just sayin' it out loud. Artists always suffer, and nobody understands them.  Look at us here, both having admitted it's true, still finding ways to argue about why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's fair.  Just in my experience interacting with artists, whatever particular suffering they're doing, seems to be a significant part of who they are.  At least, more significant, relative to non-artists.

I ain't defending it, just sayin' it out loud. Artists always suffer, and nobody understands them.  Look at us here, both having admitted it's true, still finding ways to argue about why.

Admitting what's true?  That artists suffer?  Or that artists are misunderstood?

I don't think they're misunderstood, except by themselves.  They think they're some special kind of people just because no one understands "art".  It's not the art I don't understand.  It's their heightened importance of their place in the universe.

I only admit that that they suffer in life just like everyone else.  But you seem to be saying that they suffer more.  I disagree.   We all have trials in life.  Some are more than others.  But I believe most of so called artists' trials in life are brought on by themselves for making poor choices in life.  And other trials have nothing to do with the fact that they're artists.  It is just stuff that happens.

Our stake choir director is a true artist (in music).  I think you'd be hard pressed to come across someone more talented or more knowledgeable on the subject.  But he didn't just let his "art" or "free expression" rule his life.  He utilized the talents the Lord gave him and channeled it into a cash cow of a musical institute that he founded.  He uses his talents to bless the lives of not only the stake choir, but also each ward choir.  And through all of them, the stake in general.  He uses his talents to bring the teach and bring the gift of music to many more who would participate.  He made good choices with his art.

Arnold Friberg used his gift to bless the lives of all the Mormons of my generation and many yet to come.  He didn't feel it necessary to produce pornographic material -- unless you consider his painting of the 2000 "stripping" warriors to be pornographic.  (seriously, a missionary in one of my districts thought that was what they were called):crackup:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, zil said:

I did not and would not see it un-edited.  I saw a version which had been edited to remove some language and gratuitous scenes (e.g. apparently they cut a lot from a sex scene).  I only saw it once, and it's hard to remember / recognize what else may have been cut.  But the prisoner-related scenes were not (per a warning at the start of the film).

Was this one edited by a friend of yours?  I understood that Spielberg would not see it edited even for broadcast television.  It violated his "artistic license" and he wanted everything to remain in tact in the name of historical accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Was this one edited by a friend of yours?  I understood that Spielberg would not see it edited even for broadcast television.  It violated his "artistic license" and he wanted everything to remain in tact in the name of historical accuracy.

No, it was on broadcast television, and it was edited - so they said at the start of the film - just none of the parts that dealt directly with what happened to the Jews.  (It wasn't edited out of the R-rated realm, but at least one scene was obviously edited.  Anything more than that scene, I couldn't tell.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Fether said:

No I don't... What I'm calling to question is the idea of "self censorship" how far can we stretch that reasoning? Can I watch movies with frequent sex scenes in them that push the plot, or historical movies with explicit content and claim "self censorship"?

I'll apologize on behalf of everyone for not really addressing your intended question.  Here's my attempt at an answer.

1) The article's description of self-censoring is not what you seem to be describing (based on how far we can stretch it).  It is instead how we truly hope that a free, ethical, and even Godly society should behave.
2) Most of the issues around this stem from the rarity of the ability to self-censor.
3) This has nothing to do with whether we may or may not observe/use/consume pornography in any way.  It's like it's on the Y-axis.  So, it is not a question of how far we can stretch it.  That's really the WHOLE point.  It is not something we want to stretch.  But many do.  That's when it becomes wrong.  "We let it fall where it falls" is the attitude of the self-censoring of the article.  We're not pushing the envelope.  We see it as it is and work with it the best we can.
4) Most of what we get out of Hollywood is purposefully and malice aforethought pushing the envelope.  For me, such is not a question of how we view it.  It is just wrong for them to do that.  So, I don't want to support it.  So, it doesn't matter whether I can control my urges when viewing or not.  I don't want to support it.
5) Our part in viewing it is completely independent of what their intent was (except for the support part).  Someone could very well be making a scene with, say, swimsuits.  And meaning it to be completely innocent.  But the viewer will just find such imagery titillating and watch it for that effect.  And (although much more rare) a person could indeed watch a purposefully pornographic scene and get no sensationalism out of it at all.

EXAMPLE OF SELF-CENSORING (if you didn't understand the meaning of the article).

In older, proper, times:  A woman happens to catch her dress on something, ripping it, and revealing her body.  A gentleman will immediately attempt to avert his eyes as much as possible while giving her his jacket or other means of covering her up.  All the while others try to afford her respect and privacy as they can.

Today: Same thing happens to a woman and a bunch of people take out their cameras and start taking pictures to share on social media.

The first is self-censoring.  The second is the unfortunate reality of today's culture in the US.  And honestly, I don't hear about this same thing happening in other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just in my experience interacting with artists, whatever particular suffering they're doing, seems to be a significant part of who they are.  At least, more significant, relative to non-artists.

I think this right here is the nub of NT's argument. Les artistes don't necessarily suffer more than anyone else; they just relish and glory in their suffering more than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's fair.  Just in my experience interacting with artists, whatever particular suffering they're doing, seems to be a significant part of who they are.  At least, more significant, relative to non-artists.

I am an  artist, in the sense that creating art is an important aspect of my life...not proclaiming to be good, :)  

My suffering is a significant part of who I am. I work hard in therapy and my spiritual life to make sure that significant part makes me better....and art helps with that. Sometimes art helps me express things that are unspeakable.  My point here is that perhaps art isn't the reason artists suffer, but that suffering people often turn to art to cope.   Chicken or the egg you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think this right here is the nub of NT's argument. Les artistes don't necessarily suffer more than anyone else; they just relish and glory in their suffering more than others.

Please note that there was only a light touch of irony in my words above. I actually agree with NT's observation in this matter. Furthermore, I don't think it's absurd or laughable. We all must suffer; that's part of the nature of our mortal existence. One common way of dealing with this adversity is to soldier on and try not to worry too much about it. Don't dwell on your sorrows. Keep a stiff upper lip. Man up.

Another way to deal with adversity is to let it in to our innermost selves, to define ourselves by our sufferings. This is the traditional "artistic" route. And, let's face it, much of our greatest art is based on this introspective consideration of the nature of our sufferings and how those sufferings change us. Those who stare intently into the black Void and perceive the Nothingness that stares hungrily back at them have something to tell us, and sometimes it behooves us to listen.

But I do believe there is middle ground between ignoring our afflictions and reveling in them. I think it's possible to acknowledge our sufferings and allow them space in our minds without letting them set our agenda. I believe this is exactly what our Savior did in his life and in his ministry, even (or especially) with respect to how he atoned for us.

I hope that no one I love ever loses his or her soul for art's sake. On the other hand, I hope that they do not shut themselves off from the learning and deepening of soul that comes only with adversity well-met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I am an  artist, in the sense that creating art is an important aspect of my life...not proclaiming to be good, :)  

My suffering is a significant part of who I am. I work hard in therapy and my spiritual life to make sure that significant part makes me better....and art helps with that. Sometimes art helps me express things that are unspeakable.  My point here is that perhaps art isn't the reason artists suffer, but that suffering people often turn to art to cope.   Chicken or the egg you know?

Again, I'm not saying this is incorrect.  But non-artists experience the same thing.

Some suffer and they turn to work.  Some turn to service.  Some turn their suffering into a cause for social change.  Etc.  Art is not alone in this characteristic.  That's my point.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the list of wisdom I hope to impart to my children before they are grown, there are two artist-related items.  It will help them in their dealings with artists.

1. Artists always suffer.
2. If you fall in love with an artist, they will break your heart.  Doesn't mean you can't have a full, righteous, fulfilling, eternal marriage with one, but yes, they absolutely will break your heart at least once.

These two items are specific to me, your mileage may vary when it comes to important things you wish to pass down to your kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Again, I'm not saying this is incorrect.  But non-artists experience the same thing.

Some suffer and they turn to work.  Some turn to service.  Some turn their suffering into a cause for social change.  Etc.  Art is not alone in this characteristic.  That's my point.  

I agree. Art is a great coping skill for many, but some use music, writing, theatre...wait those are all a form of art. :)   

I know some use work. Personally I think that is more avoidance, but it is likely highly dependent on the situation. Yeah, it depends on the situation. It could be healing in some situations. I put physical activity in this category as well. 

I would guess that the most emotionally healthy people use a combination of all of the above.  I know I have found each useful at different times. And some problems are more difficult than others so some may benefit from one of tjese while others require more tools. 

Service too definitely has a place in our coping tool box. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son is a real-deal artist.  He's a musical prodigy or something.  It's hard for me to assess my kid's talent separate from my bias and artistic ignorance.

Anyway, he goes to an arts school and is, therefore, somewhat living in that world.  The difference I see between artists and others is that an artist is encouraged to pour their inner selves into their art.  Art is all about expression.  And it can get very self-focusing for the young.  Other people who are in engineering schools, for example, are not encouraged to pour their inner selves into their designs.  They're actually encouraged to do the opposite - forget yourself and think logical, scientific.

So, our family tradition has always been that we teach our kids a form of art - any art.  In the Philippines, it is easier because art is 3 credit hours every year in school from elementary through high school.  In the US, not so much.  So, I enrolled my kids in any art form they're interested as an after school program.  My artist son found his talent when I signed him up for piano lessons.  My non-artist son is still banging on the drums even as he's not really into it as much as my other son is.  The advantage to this - especially for my drummer son - is that they learn to find a means to express their inner selves in a very constructive way that uplifts the soul.

In my son's art school, the problem I see is that kids are heavily encouraged to express themselves but there is no guidance on who they are supposed to be.  Therefore, kids tend to flow into the dark and mysterious arts like goth art and really weird stuff because it makes them stand out (a desire of every art student).  So now, with the LGBTQWXYZ stuff becoming popular, kids are claiming, they're transgender because they're just a lot more comfortable with that expression.  Some kids (usually girls) end up slitting their wrists in the school bathroom.

My son is having none of that.  He learned that he is a son of God and that is who he is.  So his art expression flows in that direction.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share