Paul Wilson (4 Mar 2018)
"True Beauty is Divine: A Christian View of Art | Movieguide | Movie Reviews for Christians"

I wrote to the site and haven’t heard back will let you know if I do.
Here is what I wrote:

I read your two articles on art and had a question: is nude art Okay?? NOT pornographic nude but just plain nude?? examples:

Ludwig von Hofmann - Reiter am Strand - c1890
Le jeune Baigneur endormi, Jean-Jacques Henner, huile sur toile, 1862
Mort de Barra and other nudes by Jean-Jacques Henner
nudes by Édouard Manet not to be confused with Claude Monet
Liggend naakt (Sjaantje van Ingen) by  Isaac Israëls.
Bento Barbosa - Menino tirando espinho do pé, 1897
Anna Lea Merritt   Love locked out
Pierre-Paul Prud’hon   homme-nu
Christoffer Wilhelm Eckersberg - Three Spartan boys practising archery
several nude paintings by Magnus Enckell 
several by Henry Scott Tuke (1858–1929)
ones by Joaquín Sorolla y Bastida
ones by Károly Ferenczy
ones by Kuzma Sergeevich Petrov-Vodkin
Étude de garçon nu  and others by John Singer Sargent
David by Donatello
David by Michael Angelo
photos by Wilhelm von Gloeden
photos by Wilhelm von Plüschow
painting drawings and photos by Thomas Cowperthwait Eakins
photos of Jock Sturges
photos of Sally Mann
photos of Will McBride

While these aren’t all of them they are some good examples. You can find them on wiki commons or do a search on google image.

Not ALL nudity is sexual. As such not all nude paintings, drawings, statues, photos, etc are sexual either. 

I appreciate the beauty of the human body. I see nothing wrong with that. I see nothing inherently sexual about the body. It can certainly be made sexual through posing and through self touching and so on but in it’s raw form I find nothing sexual there just beauty. I don't think anyone would have a problem with a photo of a nude baby on a bearskin rug but the same photo of a school-aged (5-18) child would be deemed wrong. Same pose but because of the age of the subject people will change the judgment of it being ok to not ok. All the christians I have run across seem to think nudity is always sexual so they don't like nude art. Sometimes I think we get a bit prudish think that since photography and other forms of nude art have been misused to make porno that all nude art is bad. I would like your thoughts.

Paul Wilson
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Paul Wilson
Protestant (only to show I don’t follow the pope)
Independence MO USA

"If man will not be governed from within, he must be governed from without."

part of article follows:

fair use for discussion

There are four basic questions that Christians should ask of a work of art:

1) What is the work trying to do?
2) How does it accomplish this purpose?
3) How well does it accomplish this purpose?
4) Was the work of art worth doing?

To answer these four questions properly, I propose the following additional questions. These questions start in a general fashion, then gravitate toward more overtly Christian attitudes about art.

1) Does the work of art stir our imagination, please our senses, stimulate our minds, and affect our emotions? How?
2) What are the motifs in the work of art – the recurring themes, images, sounds, Designs, patterns, techniques, symbols, objects, plot devices, character types, settings, situations, and archetypes? What is the artist’s intent in creating these particular motifs? How to they relate to each other and to the rest of the work?
3) What messages does the work send? How?
4) What issues does it bring out? How does it deal with these issues?
5) What is the work’s attitude toward life? Happy or sad? Optimistic or pessimistic? How does the work express that attitude?
6) Does the work of art speak truth about the human condition, nature, and the supernatural world, even when it operates on a symbolic or fantasy level? Most westerns, for instance (even the allegedly accurate Dances with Wolves), are historically untrue, but they can still speak truth about the human condition, about the natural and supernatural world, and about good and evil.
7) Does the work promote Christian love? St. Paul defines Christian love in 1 Corinthians 13: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boats, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”  If the work doesn’t promote Christian love, then it should be condemned as a lesser work.
8) Does the work arouse Christian compassion? Christian compassion should be defined as “a sympathetic awareness of other people’s suffering, together with a desire to relieve or lessen that suffering, in accordance with the moral and ethical principles in God’s word, the Bible.”  In other words, we should not show compassion toward a person who, after committing an evil act, is punished for the act. A work of art which arouses Christian compassion should be praised for this artistic quality, even it if contains other things we don’t like.
9) What is the entertainment value of the work of art? Does the work try to be enjoyable, amusing or diverting? Does it give the audience a chance to momentarily get away or escape from their worries, troubles, cares, and woes? If so, then the work is actually being very compassionate toward the suffering of people and it deserves praise. Just because a work is entertaining or provides escapism does not mean it has nothing good or “deep” to tell us.
10) Does the work advocate any theological, philosophical, or socio-political beliefs that contradict God’s standards of truth and goodness in the Bible? If so, then the work has violated artistic standards of truth and goodness.
11) Does the work of art promote truth and goodness and attack falsehood and evil according to God’s standards in the Bible? If so, then it deserves praise from Christians.
12) Does the work’s basic worldview, or way of looking at and interpreting reality and the meaning or purpose of life, contradict the Christian worldview? If so, then we should condemn the work’s artistic quality, because it has violated God’s standards of truth and goodness.
13) Assuming the work of art doesn’t contradict the Christian worldview and doesn’t contradict biblical truth and morality, does it promote or extol, in some major way, at least one of the virtues or moral principles of Christianity and the Bible, such as Godly love, forgiveness, repentance, self-control, acts of kindness, compassion, patience, justice, discipline, prayer, humility, honesty, integrity, protecting the innocent, punishing evildoers, worship of God, holiness, etc.? If so, then it deserves at least some strong praise, not only morally and spiritually but also artistically. Of course, if the artist can effectively, deftly, and clearly mix the moral message of his work into the premise, or propositional truth, of the work, then he has gone a long way toward creating a work that will stand the test of time and honor God in a positive way, even if his work doesn’t overtly mention God or religious faith.
14) Does the work of art contradict the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed by God in the New Testament documents? If so, then we should condemn the work’s artistic quality because it has violated God’s standards of truth and goodness. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that Jesus is incarnate God, second member of the Holy Trinity, who was made man in order to die for our sins. Thus, Jesus died and was buried, but rose from the dead to sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven. Anyone who believes these facts and trusts in the salvation they promise will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, third member of the Holy Trinity. They will become a member of the Kingdom of God and have everlasting physical and spiritual life with the Triune God in Heaven.