Ravi Zacharias tells the story of a trial in which a lawyer was defending a pornographer of the basest sorts. The lawyer asked the plaintiff, “Have you ever gone into an art gallery?” The plaintiff responded, “Yes.” The lawyer continued, “Have you paid to go into that art gallery?” Again the plaintiff responded, “Yes.” “Were there paintings of naked people in that art gallery?”, the lawyer asked. “Yes,” the plaintiff responded. “So why do you call that art, but Playboy pornography?” The plaintiff did not have a response.
Have you ever wondered what the difference is between a piece of art featuring nude figures, and pornography? Is there a difference?
In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”
Ravi Zacharias notes that while both art and pornography utilize nude figures, the purpose/motives for portraying the naked body are definitively distinct. Pornography utilizes nude figures for the pure purpose of stimulating the baser instincts of individuals; instincts that will not be satisfied by that alone. Art, on the other hand, utilizes nude figures for the purpose of highlighting the beauty of man. While pornography engenders lust, art engenders admiration for the glory and beauty of the human body, and thus the glory of its Maker.
Thinking to Believe 
May 27, 2009 at 12:03 pm
One of the best explanations I have heard.
LikeLike
May 27, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I wish I could take credit for thinking of it, but my hat goes off to Ravi Zacharias.
LikeLike
May 29, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I Timothy 2:9
I Peter 3:3
Your argument, as I see it, is as follows:
a) The purpose of pornography is to engender lust.
b) The purpose of nude art is to engender admiration for the beauty of the human body.
c) The effect of ‘a’ is different than the effect of ‘b’.
d) Even if the effect is the same, the purpose of ‘b’ legitimizes ‘b’ whereas the purpose of ‘a’ delegitimizes ‘a’.
e) Therefore, ‘b’ is morally acceptable and ‘a’ is not.
If I have accurately represented your argument, the conclusion does not follow due to faulty premises.
The first objection is your subjective definition of art. Within the context of fundamentalist Christianity, your definition is sustainable, prima facie. However, within the greater art community that definition is hotly disputed. Many insist celebrating human sexuality in literature, paintings, photography, etc., is as much to the glory of the Maker, Mother Earth, etc., as the statue of David you reproduce here. Moreover, why is admiration for the beauty of female genitalia any different than admiration for the act that body part is designed to perform? Your argument begs the question in favor of a definition many, if not most, of those within the art community would reject.
As to ‘a’ and ‘b’ specifically, your opponents have argued that there is nothing wrong with lust, so long as it does not harm another person, so your distinction is arbitrary. Additionally, ‘a’ and ‘b’ may be mixed — to engender lust and admiration for the human body. The only reason, then, for rejecting ‘a’ is presupposing fundamentalism. Again, this begs the question.
As to ‘c’, what is your support for this premise? I know you’re not writing a full-blown thesis for your position (this merely invites more discussion); but is it not obvious the effect of a nude female on the eyes of hormone-packed men will produce all kinds of results, including lust? Are you arguing a nude female in a non-sexualized setting will not incite lust in men?
This brings me to ‘d’. Is nudity in art acceptable to an Apostolic if the purpose is non-sexual? If your teenage children are having Art Day at their high school, would you approve of your wife disrobing so those students can admire the beauty of her body? If not, why not? If the purpose differentiates art from pornography, then you shouldn’t object. If your objection rests upon the age of the students, then let’s make it Art Day at your local college. Or, how about Art Day at your local church?
And that brings me to the scriptures heretofore quoted. Why is modesty commanded in the New Testament? If it’s hot where you live, why can’t you just take it all off (since the purpose is to say cool)? Or, if you want to keep the “essentials” covered, why not take everything else off? We may disagree over the full extent of the modesty prescription, but the point is that “purpose” is not sufficient justification for this type of nudity. Again, I am not saying that purpose is irrelevant (e.g. medical school). I am saying that purpose is an insufficient distinction for these types of presentations.
What if Jack Sprat is an art photographer and he decides to produce an art work called The Daughters of Eve wherein photographs of beautiful women in their birthday suits are presented in various “non-provocative” settings? Are you comfortable with the men in your church (including your sons) thumbing through that magazine to further their biological education? Oh yes, and tell your wife when she catches you looking at it that you’re glorifying God for His handiwork.
As children of light, we should avoid all appearance of evil. Even if some persons are not adversely affected, the truth is human nature is fallen and Christians should never be the conduit through which offense comes.
As children of light, nudity is for the restroom, doctor visits, biology class, changing diapers and marital relationships — not entertainment.
LikeLike
May 29, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Scalia,
The purpose of my post was not necessarily to speak of what is morally permissible. It was to explain something that we grasp intuitively–that there is a difference between looking at a nude woman in a painting, and looking at a nude woman in Playboy magazine–but don’t necessarily know why.
In my former life I was an artist. That was the career I wanted before God called me to ministry. I frequented my local art museum, and loved to look at all the beatiful paintings. Many of them contained nude women, and yet my looking at them did not engender lust in my soul (like looking at a Playboy magazine would). Instead, I was caught up in the beauty of the painting. The figures were not painted in such a way so as to make you desire the woman sexually.
That said, I would agree with you that we should not be looking at live-nudes, even if to paint them. While the result (the painting) may not excite the baser instincts of man, it would be hard for the live model herself/himself not to excite the baser instincts of the painter herself/himself.
It is for similar reasons that I would not exempt real-life photography from the pornography label. That is too real not to be pornographic, no matter how artistic it is. There is a difference between a drawing of a nude body, and an actual nude body, regardless of whether it is in front of our face or in a photograph.
This post was accompanied by Michaelangelo’s famous statue, David. It is a nude statue. Do you think I have posted a pornographic picture on my site? Do you think it is equivalent to me posting a picture of a scene from a pornographic movie? If not, why not? I think it would be for the very reason I explained in this post.
Jason
LikeLike
May 29, 2009 at 4:23 pm
As a boy, I lived near somebody who was an artist and one of his specialties was pencil-drawing nude women. He was very good at his profession and his work definitely got my attention — in less than exemplary ways. I can guarantee nude drawings of beautiful women can most certainly arouse the baser instincts of man. So, if The Daughters of Eve is packed full of color paintings and pencil drawings of beautiful nude women, that passes the pornography test? I think not. Perhaps you can be a detached observer, but many men cannot.
To answer your question, I wouldn’t post either picture. This may sound puritanical to you, but we remove that kind of picture from books in our home. As aforesaid, nudity has a zone of acceptance for the Christian, but not in entertainment.
Many have speculated that Michelangelo was homosexual and some of his works have been described as homoerotic. Where did this preoccupation with nudity come from? Did it come from early Christian artists committed to morality or did the nudity tradition come from Greek & Roman pagans who rejoiced in decadence? Sorry, I just don’t think the naked body stuff is for Christians, whether in photos or drawings.
LikeLike
May 29, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Scalia,
I can appreciate that stance. In fact, I would consider it wise. But I don’t think the average person walking through the art museum is being turned on by paintings of (often plump) nude women. Personally, I would not buy one of those paintings for my house, but I do think it is different than pornography.
Jason
LikeLike
September 27, 2013 at 5:21 pm
Hi there, just wanted to tell you, I liked this article.
It was helpful. Keep on posting!
LikeLike
November 3, 2014 at 3:32 am
I am always interested in this subject matter “Art v. Pornagraphy”. What defines art and how does that effect what is considered ‘artistic nudity’ and ‘poronographically lewd’ (did I spell that right? lude?). I think you may have a point, the only difference between, say, ‘Venus de Milo’ and a playboy centerfold may be the regards or contempt in which they are beholden. The thing is, my reflection when I see the ‘Venus de Milo’ isn’t at first “How beautiful!” as much as “How historically and culturally relevant, therefore interesting”, while my reaction to a playboy centerfold is usually “hubba hubba!”, and I think that this perspective may be shared by others inside and outside of any given “artistic community”. The real question may be, in one thousand years, after America is a memory and the new founders finally dig up that time capsule that those fraternity brothers from UCLA buried back in 1986, what will they think of Ms. December? Will they look at her as a realistic representation of what historic Americans found to be admirable qualities in the female specimen? Or will they silently look at each other and think, “Hubba hubba’? There in lies the question…
LikeLike
February 2, 2015 at 4:20 am
Love your topic,and may I share my point of view..
So, my view is that:
-Main reason why people look at art, and pornography is emotions.
-Artists, in a way, are able to put their emotions to paper, (or to music, or anything else they do).
-If somebody has lust whilst paints a woman, that painting will evoke lust in person that is looking. (for music it is listening…anger, peace, love, sadness)
so, for me, a key of fighting lust, and embracing good sexuality would be every now and then looking at nude art paintings from people that had a healthy point toward sexuality.
LikeLike
February 2, 2015 at 4:26 am
But only after fasting, praying and repentance. 😉
LikeLike
February 2, 2015 at 7:14 am
Art vs Pornography; what is the difference?
Art and Pornography is like Beauty and Sin: All are in the eye of the beholder; the creator’s role ends “at-in-with” the creation.
LikeLike
February 2, 2015 at 8:35 am
Nikola Perkovic:
To your point about emotions:
Music is what feelings sound like… out loud:
FOL is to music what LOL is to smile.
LikeLike
October 19, 2015 at 4:42 pm
being someone who in the past viewed pornography I can tell you there is a distinct difference between art and porn. Pornography is the garbage, art is the nourishment or at least not the garbage.
you can also treat art like porn but you can’t use porn for art some people will try to call a sex scene in a movie art, but in reality that is still porn, even in a film it is designed to trigger our desire for sex and make us lust for the flesh by showing the audience sexually graphic images but art if done properly is not porn, it is not sin either. Looking with lust is a sin but being nude and nudity is not a sin or anything to be ashamed of. You should still save your nudity only for a certain individual or situations (like modeling for a art class) I’m not promoting the nudist lifestyle either but I’m also not condemning nudity.
What makes it wrong is the motive behind it. is the individual doing it for instant gratification or lust etc. or are you doing it to admire the beauty of the human body and appreciate God’s highest creation who he gave dominion over the earth and its creatures.
That being said we still need to be careful because this kind of art can easily become an idol and that is also not good.We still need to have self control and discipline to avoid lust which is the real sin or the real wrong.
LikeLike
October 20, 2015 at 8:36 pm
Steven Cook:
Think of sin/art/porn/beauty this way. If you are in the spirit of sexual “desire” and fulfill the desire of your design before marriage without religious consent it’s called fornication; after marriage with religious consent, it’s called Love.
You see, it’s only love when it is acceptable to others, to the society at large and the only way fornication is and was acceptable and differentiated between lust and love was if you married with the blessing of the Church.
So what have we learned today? Sexual desire fulfilled before marriage is called lust, fornication; Uh Uh, NOT OKAY. BUT Lust fulfilled after marriage is Lust morphed; AKA, Love. Mmm Mmm, YES OKAY.
To define porn is simply another way to try and define sin but you can no more define what sin is for others as you can define what beauty is for another. What you are attempting to define is simply the porn/sin/art for yourself, from your own perspective; you do not and cannot define it for me or anyone else.
In other words porn like sin and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
SO:
BEFORE Marriage sex desire is lust = fornication: Sex without religious consent; The Delicious Apple.
AFTER marriage sex desire morphs into love; that is, Sex with religious consent; The Acceptable Apple.
Even animals and birds dance the dance of sexual desire and attraction and it is completely natural and sinless by design; human design is exactly the same.
LikeLike
March 1, 2016 at 3:18 am
Pornography also includes sexual intercourse?
LikeLike
May 18, 2016 at 10:22 pm
To consider nakedness and lust morally corrupt is to consider our creator the same. If clothes and ‘modesty’ were essential to the honourable, natural state of being for humanity, we would have been made with covering, that our nakedness not offend.
There should be no shame in nakedness, and no shame in admiring and even lusting for that nakedness. Shame exists when a pure, natural state of being is corrupted by greed.
Porn can be shameful because it provides an avenue to exploit people’s desires in a way that encourages them to dwell on things they otherwise wouldn’t. Porn providers encourage people to buy items which tempt them to what could be considered perversity.
It is not the act of pleasuring themselves in and of itself that is perverse, though some consider the pursuit of pleasure in any form hedonism. Again, if our maker considered sex or sexual stimulation sinful, why would he make it give us pleasure? Merely to tempt us, to provide a painful way for us to prove ourselves to him? No. Because, as is frequently mentioned in our Book, temptation is the work of evil, and the creator has no part of it.
Perversity arises when users of porn imagine themselves in situations that would never occur in reality. Don’t get me wrong, better they fantasise than perform in reality, but by imagining this they often utilise other people as objects, tools for their pleasure. They may imagine other people as objects of their lust in a way those people did not give them permission. In effect, a user of porn has taken the image of a person and allowed themselves and, if they sell porn, others, the use of that person as a representative figure for another person in their life that has not given their consent to be used in this way.
Clothes are worn so that carnal thoughts are primarily reserved for situations in which they are appropriate. This is also why most verbal conversation is somewhat reserved, and referring to sexual ideals or parts of the body that are utilised in carnal situations can feel awkward.
The way most nakedness in art is depicted, particularly in older religious art, is pure and non-carnal. Attention is not drawn to carnal areas of the body, and the primary purpose, the ultimate purpose of that artwork, is not to inspire carnal lust for the naked figure. Perhaps adoration, reverence, love; perhaps even lust in more than a small measure, but not as the major intention of the artist.
Even in what is considered modern art, where eroticism and ‘lustful’ images are more common, it is rare for the primary goal of the artist to be carnal.
In conclusion, what is the difference between porn and art?
Porn solely provides a simulacrum for you to step into, a story you play with in your imagination in pursuit of personal, carnal pleasure. Art, while it may inspire some carnal urge, does not make this it’s primary aim.
LikeLike
August 21, 2016 at 10:32 pm
[…] lucky enough to keep their whole penis because they are Hispanic. The purpose of this post is for art and […]
LikeLike
June 9, 2017 at 9:50 pm
http://prashantkamble.com/
LikeLike
May 24, 2021 at 7:44 pm
Small problem: the Pilgrim’s Regress reference does not match the text.
There is no waiter. John is trapped in the dungeon of the giant called the Spirit of the Age, and the jailer makes disgusting comments about the food that he brings them. John realises that it is all nonsense when he makes a comment about milk and faeces.
LikeLike
April 12, 2022 at 5:29 am
The commenter “Scalia” reminds me of the waiter.
LikeLike