As an artist, must learn to draw anatomy and the human figure. One of the ways to draw it is to learn to draw from life, including drawing nude figures. I have been studying nude figures from photographs like the ones in http://www.fineartnude.com/ ( you must be 18 to get into this site and must not have a problem with lust), though I have not drawn from a real life model face to face. The nudes in this site are artistically and tastefully done. In an artist's standards, they are not porn.Matthew 5: 28 says " Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart". So as long as we don't think of anything naughty while studying nude figures is okay. A good illustration would be a Christian doctor or a male Christian gynecologist to be more specific. Would it be a sin if this doctor will look at a woman's private parts but not think of any lustful things? I mean it's a profession, right? Someone has to do it.Well that's what I think. What do you guys think? So if anyone out there who has opinions, violent reactions, or simply just wanna ban me from CCAS is welcome to join this discussion.
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
I've pondered this question also since considering going to an art college...And to be honest, I still don't have answer. It's debatable for sure, I mean -- it's not like you're just starring, you're trying to learn, right? In another sense, it (at least) presents an opportunity to sin.
But to be honest, as an avid comic reader, people focus to much on the body. They always draw women in WAY too skimpy outfits -- now I realize characters like Wonder Woman wear that type of outfit anyways, but some artists focus more on certain things than other artists do. Personally, I prefer the artist's who focus less on the certain things. Again, people focus too much on that type of thing, when they should focus more on the background, detail, etc.
"So if anyone out there who has opinions, violent reactions, or simply just wanna ban me from CCAS is welcome to join this discussion."
Absolutely you should be banned from CCAS! Who do you think you are anyway?
Le'see, I was drawing nude models in figure class at boarding school when I was 14 and 15, and I gotta say IT WAS TOTALLY WORK. Again in college, and also a private class along with Dad (he was an artist, too). I got some good drawing out of those classes. It improved me as an artist. And when Sis was a college art student she drew nudes from death at the college medical school. She is so classically trained, that one. And is in Who's Who for her international reputation as an artist.
Let's not forget that 1984-1985 I earned some coin modeling nude for four different colleges here in Sacramento. I was a fatso guy even then. Here is one of Rodin's Balzacs, a nude of the fat author. http://i.pbase.com/g3/89/638689/2/55947467.paris008.jpg Woo-woo! Hot stuff!
(And a Christian pal who knows not a thing about art told me what I was doing was wrong. Knee-jerk reaction of the philistine. A poet pal, Christian, sez the born-again church just doesn't know what to do with artists and poets. I say it is no wonder that Hollywood belongs to the enemy.)
A guy from boarding school days was nude modeling for an art class up in Seattle, and a gal was nude modeling there, too. Yes, Charlie and his wife were both nude when they met.
Comic Artist's Photo References "People & Poses" by Buddy Scalera
Comic Artist's Photo References "Women and Girls" by Buddy Scalera
Those two books recently I brought past couple months, they are very helpful, useful and not nudes. Models wear clothing and use some props. I'm waiting for third one coming out soon for "Men and Boys."
When I was I kid and ask a question to my dad which he is pastor over twenty years. Question was am I go to hell if I goes take Life Drawing classes to learn draw anatomy from naking people. His asnwer is no, makes very clear to me whats difference between nude models and pornography. So I don't feel shame and guilty to draw nude models for anatomy, then add clothing in the drawing for my comics. So thats my opinion...
I've gotten a firm grip on anatomy without the use of nudes. And I also don't find it necessary to draw nudes for any reason in my art.
Certain attitudes we have toward the human body are also cultural. As Christians, we often overlook that how other people view the world is very different and we over-spiritualize. Being from Hawaii, for instance, men walk around everywhere without their shirts on. It's an innocent cultural convention that no one gives a second thought to. It wasn't until missionaries came to the islands and "told" us of the sinful nature of it that it was sexualized. It changed our thinking and now a sin existed where there was none perceived before. Here on the mainland, some people have told me that it's disrespectful to do in front of women here.
National Geographic also has pictures of Amazonian and African women bare-chested. Is it sin to them?
A man can lust after a fully clothed woman that has an hour-glass figure and long slender legs. I personally, am more attracted to a woman that leaves things to the imagination. Lusty and overtly sexual displays I find distasteful and repulsive.
It's all in the mind of the person.
But let us also consider our brother and sister and not give them occasion to fall. That is an excellent standard to uphold. Even if we're okay with it and it's not an issue for us. Let us love our brother and edify them as much as we can. To that, I must agree wholeheartedly.
These parts are there. I see nothing wrong from learning from them.
Never had a problem with odor, more or less than in any other classroom, as our sessions were usually in large, drafty studio areas. This meant that the model had to bundle up during breaks, and sometimes posed in front of one or two space heaters.
If the men were attractive, it was hard to notice because they were so goldurned difficult to draw. All those muscles and bones were so much more evident under the skin, than in women.
(Then again, you would have to consider what "attractive" means to me - my husband and I are both funny looking to other people.)
I found that a person's body can tell you things about them; the well-toned musculature of a ballerina, the legs of a runner, the scar from a C-section, the distinctive British face structure and deep Southern drawl of a man whose ancestors were colonists.
I've had many of the attitudes that have been expressed here.
The thing that I haven't seen is addressed is that it is the responsibility of you (me) as an artist, to make sure we don't lust whether the figures we draw are clothed or not. A person can draw a fully-clothed model and lust.
I've been in both types of figure-drawing classes (clothed and otherwise) and they are both helpful in their own ways. For the record, if I have my way, I prefer partially clothed models (important bits covered), because the most relevant information for my work is in posing and capturing emotion, rather than drapery. When you animate furry animals in CG, the wrinkles aren't what you focus on. :)
One thing you should do, if at all possible, is meet the model in the hallway, talk to them on breaks, or whatever. The worst thing you can do is detach from them. None of us would look at nude photos of our friends or co-workers and lust over them. But with someone who's "just a photo" it's a lot easier. Get to know the moel as a person, and lust will be much less of an issue. By knowing them as a person first, model second, you value them more, and won't degrade them by lusting.
It's not a fool-proof plan, but it does help. I personally didn't have any lust problems with the female models I've had, and it's largely because I purposed in my mind/heart not to, partially because I was too busy drawing, and partially because I made a point to know them as people.
Now, as for the necessity of drawing nude figures, I don't have to see someone's nether-regions to draw their legs well. I do have to know how the nether-regions fit into the rest of the body in general. So scant clothing is most helpful for beginners.
I actually don't at all agree with people who say drawing from nude reference books is better. This doesn't make sense. It can be helpful to have reference books, but how does that help with lust?
The discussion also seems lacking in a recognition that one can lust over a woman in a burkha, if one is inclined to do so. It might leave more to the imagination, but imagination is the source of the problem.
I am a young, single guy. I know what kinds of desires come with that. I also needed to learn to draw better because my profession required it. So I determined in my mind that I wouldn't lust over the models that were in front of me, and that I was there simply to learn, so I would learn. And that's what happened. Most people (myself included) think that if they saw a nude model they'd immediately lust over them, and they'd have to mop up their drool before beginning their drawings, but it really doesn't work that way. That kind of thinking comes from a culture where we lust over images of pretty people in movie theatres, we're taught to lust over billboards, product labels and magazines. Pictures are bombarding our minds, but they don't give us access to the soul on the other end of the lens. That's wrong. That's why when you see these models as people it curbs most of the lust. Most of the images our culture tells us to lust over are doctored, folks. When you see real people naked, they aren't quite as flawless as the pictures tell you. Seeing the real person reminds you of that very quickly. :)
In the end, if you can't control your lust, get that fixed first. I'm not saying at all that I'm perfect about that, but it's a lot easier in public than in some closet with a book.
If you can't get control of your lust, you probably shouldn't be hanging out drawing nude people. If you need the knowledge to be able to do your job as an artist, then make your decision not to lust, but to learn. By all means, try to find classes with clothed models if you're at a skill level where they can be helpful.
I don't go around showing the nude drawings I've done, aside from a couple in my portfolio, which I only show in professional situations. This is largely because I don't want to put images out there that would cause people to stumble. But again, the major portion of responsibility lies with the audience. Madonna said images of Jesus on the cross were sexy because they depict a near-naked man. Should we stop reminding people of the offense of the cross? I'd argue we can't do that. Most of us would probably say those images are some of the most powerful and useful and meaningful of all our works. But someone could potentially lust over them. You could draw a beast and someone could lust over it.
Sorry this isn't more organized, I'm just putting it down as I think it.
I practiced drawing from live models for years, on and off, but I never felt any kind of sexual desire for them. Maybe women aren't "turned on" by looking, as much as men are. The majority of pornographic images and sexually explicit visual advertising seems to feature women, and be aimed at men.
I agree, you need to see the model as a person. People sometimes forgot that in figure drawing class. (BTW that can be true about customer service people, government employees, and anybody else in uniform: they provide us with a service, and we forget they are human sometimes, because we only see the uniform.) Sometimes we offered the less shy models some of our sketches to keep, since they were mainly for practice.
HEY, talking to your models is a good idea. I should have taught of that. Thanks for giving me an idea.
I really want to draw from life because it makes my work really realistic. Can you take a look at the work I've done for Community comics. It's at: http://communitycomics.com/comics_wowio.html
I worked on the Thieves. Let me know what you think of the art I used there.
Other peoples privates are reserved for their spouses ( and their doctors ) to look at. Thats why God invented marriage ( or gynacology ). Unless your planning on drawing peoples "stuff" for a living, we as christians have no bizness looking at their "stuff" let alone trying to draw it. You can learn anatomy without having to look at their stuff.
Many of you may not have a problem with the lust issue but that doesn't mean the next guy or girl won't.
It's the attitude " it's not hurting anybody " that starts trouble. How explicit does it have to be till we start calling it porn?
Replies
But to be honest, as an avid comic reader, people focus to much on the body. They always draw women in WAY too skimpy outfits -- now I realize characters like Wonder Woman wear that type of outfit anyways, but some artists focus more on certain things than other artists do. Personally, I prefer the artist's who focus less on the certain things. Again, people focus too much on that type of thing, when they should focus more on the background, detail, etc.
"So if anyone out there who has opinions, violent reactions, or simply just wanna ban me from CCAS is welcome to join this discussion."
Absolutely you should be banned from CCAS! Who do you think you are anyway?
Le'see, I was drawing nude models in figure class at boarding school when I was 14 and 15, and I gotta say IT WAS TOTALLY WORK. Again in college, and also a private class along with Dad (he was an artist, too). I got some good drawing out of those classes. It improved me as an artist. And when Sis was a college art student she drew nudes from death at the college medical school. She is so classically trained, that one. And is in Who's Who for her international reputation as an artist.
Let's not forget that 1984-1985 I earned some coin modeling nude for four different colleges here in Sacramento. I was a fatso guy even then. Here is one of Rodin's Balzacs, a nude of the fat author. http://i.pbase.com/g3/89/638689/2/55947467.paris008.jpg Woo-woo! Hot stuff!
(And a Christian pal who knows not a thing about art told me what I was doing was wrong. Knee-jerk reaction of the philistine. A poet pal, Christian, sez the born-again church just doesn't know what to do with artists and poets. I say it is no wonder that Hollywood belongs to the enemy.)
A guy from boarding school days was nude modeling for an art class up in Seattle, and a gal was nude modeling there, too. Yes, Charlie and his wife were both nude when they met.
To anyone for whom this shoe fits -- grow up!
To the rest -- good posts.
.
Comic Artist's Photo References "Women and Girls" by Buddy Scalera
Those two books recently I brought past couple months, they are very helpful, useful and not nudes. Models wear clothing and use some props. I'm waiting for third one coming out soon for "Men and Boys."
When I was I kid and ask a question to my dad which he is pastor over twenty years. Question was am I go to hell if I goes take Life Drawing classes to learn draw anatomy from naking people. His asnwer is no, makes very clear to me whats difference between nude models and pornography. So I don't feel shame and guilty to draw nude models for anatomy, then add clothing in the drawing for my comics. So thats my opinion...
Certain attitudes we have toward the human body are also cultural. As Christians, we often overlook that how other people view the world is very different and we over-spiritualize. Being from Hawaii, for instance, men walk around everywhere without their shirts on. It's an innocent cultural convention that no one gives a second thought to. It wasn't until missionaries came to the islands and "told" us of the sinful nature of it that it was sexualized. It changed our thinking and now a sin existed where there was none perceived before. Here on the mainland, some people have told me that it's disrespectful to do in front of women here.
National Geographic also has pictures of Amazonian and African women bare-chested. Is it sin to them?
A man can lust after a fully clothed woman that has an hour-glass figure and long slender legs. I personally, am more attracted to a woman that leaves things to the imagination. Lusty and overtly sexual displays I find distasteful and repulsive.
It's all in the mind of the person.
But let us also consider our brother and sister and not give them occasion to fall. That is an excellent standard to uphold. Even if we're okay with it and it's not an issue for us. Let us love our brother and edify them as much as we can. To that, I must agree wholeheartedly.
These parts are there. I see nothing wrong from learning from them.
If the men were attractive, it was hard to notice because they were so goldurned difficult to draw. All those muscles and bones were so much more evident under the skin, than in women.
(Then again, you would have to consider what "attractive" means to me - my husband and I are both funny looking to other people.)
I found that a person's body can tell you things about them; the well-toned musculature of a ballerina, the legs of a runner, the scar from a C-section, the distinctive British face structure and deep Southern drawl of a man whose ancestors were colonists.
The thing that I haven't seen is addressed is that it is the responsibility of you (me) as an artist, to make sure we don't lust whether the figures we draw are clothed or not. A person can draw a fully-clothed model and lust.
I've been in both types of figure-drawing classes (clothed and otherwise) and they are both helpful in their own ways. For the record, if I have my way, I prefer partially clothed models (important bits covered), because the most relevant information for my work is in posing and capturing emotion, rather than drapery. When you animate furry animals in CG, the wrinkles aren't what you focus on. :)
One thing you should do, if at all possible, is meet the model in the hallway, talk to them on breaks, or whatever. The worst thing you can do is detach from them. None of us would look at nude photos of our friends or co-workers and lust over them. But with someone who's "just a photo" it's a lot easier. Get to know the moel as a person, and lust will be much less of an issue. By knowing them as a person first, model second, you value them more, and won't degrade them by lusting.
It's not a fool-proof plan, but it does help. I personally didn't have any lust problems with the female models I've had, and it's largely because I purposed in my mind/heart not to, partially because I was too busy drawing, and partially because I made a point to know them as people.
Now, as for the necessity of drawing nude figures, I don't have to see someone's nether-regions to draw their legs well. I do have to know how the nether-regions fit into the rest of the body in general. So scant clothing is most helpful for beginners.
I actually don't at all agree with people who say drawing from nude reference books is better. This doesn't make sense. It can be helpful to have reference books, but how does that help with lust?
The discussion also seems lacking in a recognition that one can lust over a woman in a burkha, if one is inclined to do so. It might leave more to the imagination, but imagination is the source of the problem.
I am a young, single guy. I know what kinds of desires come with that. I also needed to learn to draw better because my profession required it. So I determined in my mind that I wouldn't lust over the models that were in front of me, and that I was there simply to learn, so I would learn. And that's what happened. Most people (myself included) think that if they saw a nude model they'd immediately lust over them, and they'd have to mop up their drool before beginning their drawings, but it really doesn't work that way. That kind of thinking comes from a culture where we lust over images of pretty people in movie theatres, we're taught to lust over billboards, product labels and magazines. Pictures are bombarding our minds, but they don't give us access to the soul on the other end of the lens. That's wrong. That's why when you see these models as people it curbs most of the lust. Most of the images our culture tells us to lust over are doctored, folks. When you see real people naked, they aren't quite as flawless as the pictures tell you. Seeing the real person reminds you of that very quickly. :)
In the end, if you can't control your lust, get that fixed first. I'm not saying at all that I'm perfect about that, but it's a lot easier in public than in some closet with a book.
If you can't get control of your lust, you probably shouldn't be hanging out drawing nude people. If you need the knowledge to be able to do your job as an artist, then make your decision not to lust, but to learn. By all means, try to find classes with clothed models if you're at a skill level where they can be helpful.
I don't go around showing the nude drawings I've done, aside from a couple in my portfolio, which I only show in professional situations. This is largely because I don't want to put images out there that would cause people to stumble. But again, the major portion of responsibility lies with the audience. Madonna said images of Jesus on the cross were sexy because they depict a near-naked man. Should we stop reminding people of the offense of the cross? I'd argue we can't do that. Most of us would probably say those images are some of the most powerful and useful and meaningful of all our works. But someone could potentially lust over them. You could draw a beast and someone could lust over it.
Sorry this isn't more organized, I'm just putting it down as I think it.
~R
I agree, you need to see the model as a person. People sometimes forgot that in figure drawing class. (BTW that can be true about customer service people, government employees, and anybody else in uniform: they provide us with a service, and we forget they are human sometimes, because we only see the uniform.) Sometimes we offered the less shy models some of our sketches to keep, since they were mainly for practice.
I really want to draw from life because it makes my work really realistic. Can you take a look at the work I've done for Community comics. It's at:
http://communitycomics.com/comics_wowio.html
I worked on the Thieves. Let me know what you think of the art I used there.
Many of you may not have a problem with the lust issue but that doesn't mean the next guy or girl won't.
It's the attitude " it's not hurting anybody " that starts trouble. How explicit does it have to be till we start calling it porn?
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next