Reflection on April 15, 1981

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb59.htm

My wife was born the day after SJPII gave this address.

I found this talk both very interesting and somewhat confusing. I think I understand what SJPII is pointing to, but I am not sure I completely agree with the overall points he seems to be making. First, we look at the idea that there are two dimensions to our understanding of the body. There is the objective, the being of the body, and there is the subjective, the experiences we have of the body. These are not united after the fall and the further they are, the further we are from a Godly understanding of the body, where we got the term authentic subjectivity from.

SJPII begins to talk about art and the confusion that it can cause. Art, of a human body, is itself an object. It was created of some other material than flesh and bone, has no spirit, is not alive, it is an object. Therefore, a person should see it as an object, its objectification, its reduction, should be of no concern. SJPII disagrees with those assumptions because, after the fall, man does not have the ability to separate the image or art of a human body with the real thing. The art of a human body can have the same effects (often ill effects) on a person and on their heart or inner person. It might be odd to say it, but art of the human body should not be looked on in a reductive way and we can commit adultery in our hearts with an object, human art.

When you think about art and its effect on you, it is easy to see that this can happen. Pornography has an effect on you. But in a more positive sense, the image of a crucifix also has an effect on you. Both are objects of human forms, but because they are in human form, they affect us and our experience and therefore our view of what it means to be human. SJPII puts art (painting/sculptures) in a different category than film and photography. I assume that most photographers and film producers would disagree with that categorization. He seems to make the distinction because of the intervening set between the model and the finished product. A painting of a model still has touches of the painter’s interpretation in there, so you are not seeing the model, but the painter’s interpretation. A camera takes a picture and that is what the person would see if they were there. I questioned that thinking because I have seen, and posted examples, of what people can do with photo shop. What we see in a magazine maybe nothing like what was in front of the camera. And films are edited and graphics and special effects are added, new voices given, blemishes removed.

It seems to me that photos and film can be art, they are just the new canvases and materials that artist use. I would also question as to whether any painting or sculpture was ever done for the purpose of being erotic in a reductive sense. If that is the case, film can be art and art can be reductive, and it just seems very hard to make, what appear to be, generalizations about either type. I thought the bigger point, that art or images of the human body, must be treated as a actual human body because if you view them in a reductive sense, you can head down the wrong path, and we need to be careful not to fall into thinking “they are only pictures so it doesn’t hurt anyone to look at them with lust”.