Reflection on May 6, 1981

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb62.htm

“Our preceding reflections did not intend to question the right to this subject.” When I first started reading the talks on this subject I thought he was saying exactly the opposite of this. Throughout history the images and stories of unions between man and woman have been the central focus of many works of art. That makes sense because so much of our life revolves around the relationships we have, especially with the opposite sex, most especially in that special union of marriage. But, as opposed to restricting us from the field, SJPII is teaching that if we are in this field we must act in an ethical manner, not just artistically. The idea that anything can be art is ludicrous, yet this is accepted by many.

It is easy to see where the issue comes from when SJPII says that an artist must not just conform their art, but conform their life. A good portion of the “art world” comprise to the most liberal people in the world. Art is a reflection of their beliefs and what they think of the human body. It is no small wonder that a group that has no sense of human dignity would see no issue with the display of the human body in a manner that is objectifying. They might find any art that puts the body in a way that is not objectifying as not art or not realistic. The human is a glorified animal, there is no soul, it is an object to be treated anyway they want, and so their art will reflect that. The further the world slips into immorality the further they will push art to go along with it.

I was thinking about a sculpture that would cross the boundary. Or is there a nude photo that would fit into this mode of contemplation. “The contemplation of this makes it possible to concentrate, in a way, on the whole truth of man, on the dignity and the beauty—also the "suprasensual" beauty—of his masculinity and femininity.” A sculpture that might cross the boundary is “The Abduction of Proserpina”. http://www.angelfire.com/co4/kerianne/proserp2.jpg I am trying to think of a nude photo that would allow you to contemplate dignity in the way described by JPII.

I think, along with what I talked about last time with the naturalist being ashamed in front of a doctor, people have a gut reaction to art that is inappropriate. It may be down deep and it may be ignored, but it is there and comes from that same place, that original innocence. It is the duty of the artist and the recipient to keep art inside its boundaries. Artist can try to off reflection on the whole truth of the body through art, but the recipient can still take that and abuse it.