And I thought I was a prude
This article is a good example of Whitworth at its most Christian. It amused me for a while, especially since she refers to Gordon (my prof) as “Gordon R. Wilson” both times she makes mention of him.
OPINION: The naked truth in art
Maria Johnson, Staff Writer
Nude drawing classes offered at Whitworth University? A Christian university? Talk about culture shock. I was appalled.
Gordon R. Wilson, the art department chair, said the nude figure drawing class was established by emeritus professor Pauline Hausse, a former Whitworth professor of art. This inception was initiated about 50 years ago when Whitworth had been under the guidance of the former Whitworth President, Frank Warren. When I had the privilege of interviewing Gordon R. Wilson regarding the figure drawing class, he explained to me quite passionately his reasons in endorsing this particular field of academia as a Christian himself, and sanctioning it in a Christian institute. He stated, “The art department works respectfully with the human figure attempting to bring honor to God in the process. In a Christian context the human form is the highest achievement of God in Creation. In time-honored professional artistic practice, the human form is worthy of visual study and analogous to the scientific study of the human body in medicine and biology.”
One question came to mind immediately: If the human body is to be looked at in awe, why did Adam and Eve cover themselves from their nakedness? In the book of Genesis, after Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, “…then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.” Genesis 3:7. It’s interesting to me that Adam and Eve would make coverings for themselves to hide their nakedness from each other, when before their sin, they were completely naked and were without shame as Genesis 2:25 declares, “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” Why would Adam and Eve cover themselves from each other no less, when they’re husband and wife? Why the shame, when before they had no shame of each other’s nakedness? When sin entered into the world, sin distorted what was beautiful, pure and holy; what God Himself created; therefore, I would not consider the issue of nude drawings flippantly.
The barrier between God and man was reconciled permanently through the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The blood of Christ abolished sin from separating us from fellowship with our Creator. Does that mean nakedness is thus permitted? No, because even though we have been reconciled, Christ's New Kingdom has not yet come and been established. Even though we are under grace, sin still exists. The apostle Paul claims, “Everything is permissible - but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible - but not everything is constructive.” If nudity is to be looked at with adoration and God’s creation of beauty, which is true, yet because of sin, we must not indulge in the sinful nature. Why would the Apostle Paul, who was a Pharisee and declared God’s Grace from the Law, ask women to dress modestly and with decency? In Romans 6:13-14, “Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.”
Thereby, from this passage in scripture am I offering my gifts to God as an artist holy by drawing nude models? Shouldn't some mysteries be left alone? I would like to think so…at least until I’m married!
But by the end of the article, I was a bit annoyed. When I’m annoyed I expostulate. I ended up writing this response:
It is possible to be completely respectful to someone's body and to draw it at the same time. When a student takes a nude figure drawing class, as I have, they are so absorbed in making the drawing look accurate and proportional that they hardly pay attention to the nudity of the model. A leg is a leg, and usually the whole class comes out of the session complaining about how difficult it is to draw elbows rather than pondering the morality of their drawings. The models come to the class voluntarily, the students sign up for the class voluntarily, and there are opportunities to opt out of the class, even if you are an art major. When you are "appalled" at these classes, keep in mind that you don't have to take them. If you are simply "appalled" at the fact that there is a nude on campus three hours a day, one day a week for one semester every two years, then think of this- most universities offer a class similar to this more than once a semester, every semester. Even Spokane Falls Community College has a figure drawing class every quarter. If anything, I'm "appalled" that the class is offered at this school so rarely.
Speaking more practically against your argument, most of the models in the nude drawing class are women, and most of the students are women. I'd think it odd if a woman had never seen herself nude, and most of us look vaguely the same nude. Despite the anomalies, with the occasional male popping up on one side or the other, there is very little sexual arousal going on. Also, most of the models are, shall we say, older, and rather on the less attractive end of the spectrum. When the male models come in, they are rather farther on the less attractive end of the spectrum. When there are men drawing in the class, they tend to be either of the sort that aren't interested in flabby older women, are embarrassed and leave, or they not be interested in women. None of those reactions are wrong, or sinful. The honest truth is that the sort of human figure we are drawing is not pornographic or sexual in any way. It's more like accidentally walking in on your mom while she's showering, only less embarrassing and lasting for a longer period of time.
What really intrigues me about this article is the seeming reticence to look at a nude form. How can anyone have not been exposed to nude paintings at some point in their life? Some of the most famous pieces in the world, like the David and the Venus de Milo, contain nudity. How could those pieces have been made without some knowledge of figure drawing and anatomy? There's no way you can "imagine" or "picture" the body, even with assistance from anatomy textbooks. We aren't going to the extremes that Michelangelo did to learn about anatomy, granted, but at the same time we will likely never reach his level of precision. Drawing from models is the only way to realistically see how the body is put together while getting someone to sit still long enough to draw. It is simply an essential thing to learn if an artist plans to do any work related to the human figure (clothed or otherwise). Furthermore, many graduate art schools require some examples of classical figure drawing education. If a student wishes to go on to grad school, shouldn't our University allow them the opportunity to draw from a nude model?
Keep in mind that some, if not most, of the people that take this class have different religious or moral views than you do. To take this class is a choice, just like any other choice. The program would be incomplete without a Figure Drawing offering. As the Art Department is growing and becoming a more and more legitimate and respectable program, the elimination of a figure drawing class would only be a cheap, submissive gesture to people that quote scripture to justify its elimination while completely ignoring the needs of the art students. While Whitworth is a Christian University, it also prides itself on its way of challenging and strengthening its student's opinions and beliefs. The Figure Drawing class is essential to a complete education as an art student, is not sexualized or inappropriate, is completely voluntary, and is also in keeping with the traditions and educations of many, many, MANY perfectly faithful Christian artists.
Perhaps I was “flippant”. Perhaps I was harsh. Perhaps I was especially grumpy tonight.. Perhaps I was procrastinating writing my “state of the discipline” paper.
I think the Senior Seminar gout has gripped me. I have symptoms of excessive reading, snarky criticisms, pretentiousness, thinking about art nigh constantly, and writing one-page-single-spaced papers.
OPINION: The naked truth in art
Maria Johnson, Staff Writer
Nude drawing classes offered at Whitworth University? A Christian university? Talk about culture shock. I was appalled.
Gordon R. Wilson, the art department chair, said the nude figure drawing class was established by emeritus professor Pauline Hausse, a former Whitworth professor of art. This inception was initiated about 50 years ago when Whitworth had been under the guidance of the former Whitworth President, Frank Warren. When I had the privilege of interviewing Gordon R. Wilson regarding the figure drawing class, he explained to me quite passionately his reasons in endorsing this particular field of academia as a Christian himself, and sanctioning it in a Christian institute. He stated, “The art department works respectfully with the human figure attempting to bring honor to God in the process. In a Christian context the human form is the highest achievement of God in Creation. In time-honored professional artistic practice, the human form is worthy of visual study and analogous to the scientific study of the human body in medicine and biology.”
One question came to mind immediately: If the human body is to be looked at in awe, why did Adam and Eve cover themselves from their nakedness? In the book of Genesis, after Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, “…then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.” Genesis 3:7. It’s interesting to me that Adam and Eve would make coverings for themselves to hide their nakedness from each other, when before their sin, they were completely naked and were without shame as Genesis 2:25 declares, “The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.” Why would Adam and Eve cover themselves from each other no less, when they’re husband and wife? Why the shame, when before they had no shame of each other’s nakedness? When sin entered into the world, sin distorted what was beautiful, pure and holy; what God Himself created; therefore, I would not consider the issue of nude drawings flippantly.
The barrier between God and man was reconciled permanently through the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The blood of Christ abolished sin from separating us from fellowship with our Creator. Does that mean nakedness is thus permitted? No, because even though we have been reconciled, Christ's New Kingdom has not yet come and been established. Even though we are under grace, sin still exists. The apostle Paul claims, “Everything is permissible - but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible - but not everything is constructive.” If nudity is to be looked at with adoration and God’s creation of beauty, which is true, yet because of sin, we must not indulge in the sinful nature. Why would the Apostle Paul, who was a Pharisee and declared God’s Grace from the Law, ask women to dress modestly and with decency? In Romans 6:13-14, “Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.”
Thereby, from this passage in scripture am I offering my gifts to God as an artist holy by drawing nude models? Shouldn't some mysteries be left alone? I would like to think so…at least until I’m married!
But by the end of the article, I was a bit annoyed. When I’m annoyed I expostulate. I ended up writing this response:
It is possible to be completely respectful to someone's body and to draw it at the same time. When a student takes a nude figure drawing class, as I have, they are so absorbed in making the drawing look accurate and proportional that they hardly pay attention to the nudity of the model. A leg is a leg, and usually the whole class comes out of the session complaining about how difficult it is to draw elbows rather than pondering the morality of their drawings. The models come to the class voluntarily, the students sign up for the class voluntarily, and there are opportunities to opt out of the class, even if you are an art major. When you are "appalled" at these classes, keep in mind that you don't have to take them. If you are simply "appalled" at the fact that there is a nude on campus three hours a day, one day a week for one semester every two years, then think of this- most universities offer a class similar to this more than once a semester, every semester. Even Spokane Falls Community College has a figure drawing class every quarter. If anything, I'm "appalled" that the class is offered at this school so rarely.
Speaking more practically against your argument, most of the models in the nude drawing class are women, and most of the students are women. I'd think it odd if a woman had never seen herself nude, and most of us look vaguely the same nude. Despite the anomalies, with the occasional male popping up on one side or the other, there is very little sexual arousal going on. Also, most of the models are, shall we say, older, and rather on the less attractive end of the spectrum. When the male models come in, they are rather farther on the less attractive end of the spectrum. When there are men drawing in the class, they tend to be either of the sort that aren't interested in flabby older women, are embarrassed and leave, or they not be interested in women. None of those reactions are wrong, or sinful. The honest truth is that the sort of human figure we are drawing is not pornographic or sexual in any way. It's more like accidentally walking in on your mom while she's showering, only less embarrassing and lasting for a longer period of time.
What really intrigues me about this article is the seeming reticence to look at a nude form. How can anyone have not been exposed to nude paintings at some point in their life? Some of the most famous pieces in the world, like the David and the Venus de Milo, contain nudity. How could those pieces have been made without some knowledge of figure drawing and anatomy? There's no way you can "imagine" or "picture" the body, even with assistance from anatomy textbooks. We aren't going to the extremes that Michelangelo did to learn about anatomy, granted, but at the same time we will likely never reach his level of precision. Drawing from models is the only way to realistically see how the body is put together while getting someone to sit still long enough to draw. It is simply an essential thing to learn if an artist plans to do any work related to the human figure (clothed or otherwise). Furthermore, many graduate art schools require some examples of classical figure drawing education. If a student wishes to go on to grad school, shouldn't our University allow them the opportunity to draw from a nude model?
Keep in mind that some, if not most, of the people that take this class have different religious or moral views than you do. To take this class is a choice, just like any other choice. The program would be incomplete without a Figure Drawing offering. As the Art Department is growing and becoming a more and more legitimate and respectable program, the elimination of a figure drawing class would only be a cheap, submissive gesture to people that quote scripture to justify its elimination while completely ignoring the needs of the art students. While Whitworth is a Christian University, it also prides itself on its way of challenging and strengthening its student's opinions and beliefs. The Figure Drawing class is essential to a complete education as an art student, is not sexualized or inappropriate, is completely voluntary, and is also in keeping with the traditions and educations of many, many, MANY perfectly faithful Christian artists.
Perhaps I was “flippant”. Perhaps I was harsh. Perhaps I was especially grumpy tonight.. Perhaps I was procrastinating writing my “state of the discipline” paper.
I think the Senior Seminar gout has gripped me. I have symptoms of excessive reading, snarky criticisms, pretentiousness, thinking about art nigh constantly, and writing one-page-single-spaced papers.