Nudity: Art or Pornography? Dr.

Jeff Anderson, Professor of Humanities at BYU–Idaho

I would first want you to understand that there is a distinction between nudity and
pornography. To understand that distinction, it might be helpful to think of the situation
with Adam and Eve after they were placed the Garden of Eden. The scriptures tell us:
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Moses 3:25)

Adam and Eve were then in a state of innocence, and their nakedness is a symbol of that
innocence. It is for that same reason that many parents take pictures of their nude little
children—they think it is cute and innocent. It was only after Satan tempted Adam and Eve
and they partook of the fruit that they discovered their nakedness and hid from God. God
asked Adam, Who told thee that thou wast naked? (Genesis 3:11) It was Satan who told
Adam and Eve they were naked and needed to be ashamed, not God. Satan took something
that was naturally innocent and turned it into something shameful. Once that notion was
introduced to Adam and Eve, God gave them skins to clothe their nakedness. Another
example of how nudity does not always equate with wickedness or pornography is in
marriage. Husbands and wives may view each other’s nakedness without being sinful. In this
case, nudity is not pornography.

But what about nudity in art—is it pornography? The answer is, “that depends.” Nudity in
art really begins with the Greeks. They admired the nude human form as the greatest work
of art and attached no shame to it. Even in the Olympic Games, athletes competed in the
nude. The Greeks set a standard and created a model in art that was imitated by the Romans
and which influenced art clear up to the present. Most art schools even today have classes
where students learn to draw the human figure from live nude models. Nudity in art has
come to suggest the classical spirit of the ancient Greeks and Romans in their admiration of
the beauty of the ideal human form. It was in this spirit that Michelangelo created his
sculpture of which President Spencer W. Kimball wrote, “His David in Florence and his
Moses in Rome inspire to adulation” (“The Gospel Vision of the Arts,” Ensign, July 1977, 3-
5).

David’s nudity does not titillate or provoke immoral thoughts and feelings, as would
pornography. On the contrary, it suggests David’s innocence and vulnerability as he faces
Goliath with only his faith in God as a protection. Nudity in art, then, often inspires feelings
of awe and humility as we admire the workmanship of the artist and the God-like qualities
inherit in man who was created after the image of God. But then we must be careful,
because there is much in popular culture that runs contrary to the principles of the gospel,
and that includes art. In the name of art and free expression some artists have exploited
human figures, both clothed and naked by placing them in suggestive poses or in other ways
trying to stimulate evil thoughts and feelings.

So is there a place for nudes in classes at a church university? Though the General
authorities do not micromanage every course taught here, you would be surprised at how
well they understand the details of what goes on here. For the most part, they understand
the role of nudes in art, and if they thought it inappropriate to address that tradition here,
believe me, they would not hesitate to express it. As a teacher of the arts, I feel a
responsibility to help students become acquainted with the most important works of art in
our cultural history. Some of those works happen to be nudes. I am careful, however, not to
include those works of art, which I believe are pornographic in their intent and appearance.
While our students come from a variety of cultural backgrounds and experience, I believe
they can sense through the Spirit those nudes in art, which inspire and those that titillate. I
hope they can sense the intent of the artist and can develop a healthy admiration for the
beauty of God’s greatest creation, mankind. As the apostle Paul put it, “Unto the pure all
things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even
their mind and conscience is defiled” (Titus 1:15).

Nudity found in classical art such as Michelangelo's, "David" or "Creation of Adam" on the
Sistine Chapel ceiling were not created with that intention of causing sexual arousal. On the
contrary, they were in fact created, to show the beauty and glorification of the human body
created by God. The Renaissance was a period in history where new discoveries and studies
were taking place and that included the study of human
anatomy. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-anatomy-of-renaissance-art-
36887285/?no-ist

"Michelangelo, who beheld the glory and beauty of God and revealed it to us in the frescoes
of the Sistine Chapel and in the statues of David, Moses, and the Pieta. Here the vision has
been painted in brilliant color and chiseled in glorious white Carrara marble. The ideals of
youth and wisdom and courage and beauty and godliness have been cast into perfect form,
the harmonious fusion of idea and form perfectly achieved. [...] Only through the
contemplation of beauty—divine beauty, not the beauty of the world and of fashion, which
is so prominently displayed around us today—does man become good. In one of his
sonnets, Michelangelo, the painter of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, expresses this idea: Any
beauteous thing raises the pure and just desire of man from earth to God, the eternal font of
all (see The Sonnets of Michael Angelo Buonarroti, trans. John A. Symonds [London: Smith, Elder
and Co., 1878], nos. LIV and LVI). https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hans-wilhelm-
kelling_contemplation-beauty-avenue-communication-lord/